Re: The Future and Nihilism (was Re: >H RE: Present dangers to transhumanism)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brian Manning Delaney

Brian Manning Delaney wrote,
>> Logically, existence cannot have a purpose,
>> because teleology assumes an entity external to
>> the goal meta-system under consideration.
>
>Maybe, but an individual's life can't be argued on these grounds
>not to have a purpose (since there are things external to it).

I'd go further than that, and say that an individual's life can't be argued not to have a purpose _on any grounds whatsoever_, because individuals can decide for themselves the purpose of their own lives -- independent of any external decrees.

But the statement about the purposelessness of existence itself nevertheless remains valid.

>> I think Transhumanists become their own worst
>> enemies in proportion as they fail to transcend
>> philosophy to embrace science, especially the
>> science of subjectivity.
>
>Why?
>
>Seems odd, since science is a subset of philosophy.

Science a subset of philosophy?

I don't think so.
That sounds as preposterous as claiming electrical engineering as a subset of alchemy -- or astrophysics as a subset of astrology.

Science means a system of knowledge subject to empirical verification.

Philosophy means the art of asking the wrong questions.

        .--,       .--,
       ( (  \.---./  ) )
      '.__/o    o\__.'
        ={=  ^  =}=
            >  -  <

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brian Manning Delaney