On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:07:38AM -0700, hal@finney.org wrote:
> Anders writes:
> > But this is not a concept of human nature you can build a philosophy on
> > - it can't answer questions like: are humans rational? what is the
> > essence of being human? If a machine if generous, is it human? Why does
> > technology develop? This is rather a description from a economic
> > materialist perspective how certain behaviors have become more common,
> > than a concept of what it means to be a human.
>
> I'm not comfortable with this philosophical approach of seeking to
> understand the world at the level of humanity and its nature. It's not
> clear to me that this is the right level of abstraction to advance our
> understanding.
This is of course an important question. I think many philosophical (and
other) discussions tend to get derailed by looking at problems at the
wrong level (e.g. trying to demonstrate free will by talking about
quantum mechanics, or explain individual behavior from large scale
social trends). But when talking about how to live one's life, it seems
that the natural level to discuss the person is both at the level of
universal human traits, and at the individual person's specific being.
If we were to discuss (say) the purpose of society or the nature of
emotions, other levels of description would be more relevant.
> Putting it bluntly, I don't see that my highest goal in life should
> necessarily be the advancement of reason, simply because that trait
> happens to distinguish humanity from apekind. I feel under no obligation
> to exaggerate my differences from the apes and to preferentially develop
> those traits that distinguish me from them. It may be that I want to
> develop my reasoning abilities, but it's not because of any deficiencies
> on the part of apes!
I understand your objection, but I think you misunderstood Aristotele's
position. He did not say that the only true happiness is the development
of one's reason. Rather, you become happy by employing reason. Sure, one
way of applying reason is to extend it, and this is often very rewarding
(at least to philosophical people), but there are many other
possibilities. My impression of Aristotele is that he was a rather
pluralist person, not claiming there existed a specific lifestyle that
was the best possible and that everybody ought to pursue (which sounds
more platonist), but rather that there exists a broad direction of life
where happiness is maximized.
> If there were other species around that were also intelligent, would
> we then say that humanity's purpose was no longer the advancement of
> rationality, but rather, perhaps, the advancement of singing ability
> (supposing the other intelligent species didn't sing)?
In this case Aristotele would likely have said that the distinguishing
trait of intelligent beings is reason, and for flourishing it would have
to be exerted. In humans there would have been an unique way of exerting
it through singing, which would have been a way for humans to express
their unique nature, just as the intelligent dolphins might have
expressed theirs through ultrasound artworks.
> This all smacks of an argument from intelligent design, that each organism
> was created with a place and purpose in the world, and we have to discover
> that purpose. By that argument it's logical to look at how you differ
> from other organisms in order to learn what the purpose was which you
> were put here to fulfill. But with a truer understanding of the nature
> of life, we know that there is no such purpose. Comparing ourselves
> with other species does not tell us how we should live.
I think Aristotele quite often fell for this kind of argument (just look
at his theory of causes), but that doesn't mean a neo-aristotelian
reading of him has to. Instead of thinking in terms of purposes of
human life, we can ask: what kinds of life *works*? What results do they
produce? Which of these results were the intended? Which make people
happy?
Clearly these depends on human nature (if we had a completely different
motivational system different things and ways of living would make us
happy - or happiness by any definition might not even exist) and how
this nature works relative to other humans and the surrounding universe.
There doesn't have to be any inherent general purpose for humans for
humans to be able to create purposes for themselves.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT