[avant-garde]

Do you believe that rational measures can overcome human nature? Y/N?

For instance, these are just some of the various examples and I hope they doesn't limit the scope of the conversation:

(ex) Will political correctness allow people of different races and genders to overcome their innate differences?

(ex) Were the Enlightenment ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" really feasible in a world of limited resources?



Given enough time into the future, what do you think is possible?

[squishybear]

What is rational? It is a term defined by 'human nature'. But since human nature is always irrational, rational is in fact, not rational at all.

[Happening.Inc]

I doubt it. Our system says a lot of things both good and bad but as you have mention ther eis limited resource we can drain from. I believe that even in the long run of thigns, we as a whole will never be able to achieve the ideal status we want. Because the human things we all do without realizing it, is that we're never happy with what we have in life. There's always room to want more and need more.

[clee86]

What is rational? It is a term defined by 'human nature'. But since human nature is always irrational, rational is in fact, not rational at all.

I agree, unless human nature can be changed, overcoming it through rational thinking is just wishful thinking.
I believe that we would have to change our core itself of how we perceive things to be able to even think about changing the way we think.

Humanity's desire to want more over others will conflict with ideals of equality, etc.

I do think that people over time can change though,
Hopefully people can overcome there nature, even though it doesn't seem likely.

[Happening.Inc]

That is very true, human nature is very hard to change, and we tend to see the changes made turn back into old habits. In addition regardless of the situation, no two person while have the exact make point of view due to their difference in preferences.

[HERMIT]

It's amazing what lobotomies can accomplish.

[loveartiste]

nope.

you sure are a hopeful, considering your other topics.

[Shinobu]

Is this supposed to be some kind of tricky question?

[xkrndreamer]

after watching 500 nations, ethnic notions, the color of fear, and a class divided, human nature will always be human nature.

[yabasta]

Shinobu Posted Yesterday, 03:17 PM
Is this supposed to be some kind of tricky question?

No, it is an extremely broad and convoluted sentence. It will take some effort of the original poster, and other members to narrow down the 'inquiry' of interest.

Rather than answer avant-garde's questions, I'm going to point out the problems of his topic starting post. The foundation of his problem lies with the fact that he has 4 distinctive questions and that the questions are impossible to answer in conjunction with one and other (i.e. they have nothing to do with one and other directly).

His first question refuses to define which conceptions of human nature is being used for this discussion. Also, he gives no examples of his rational measures, let alone explain what they are. Finally, his question demands the response to be a 'yes' or 'no' question. In essence, it is an unrealistic quesiton to respond to, with a simple yes or no.

The second question actually has a subject to discuss (rather than an open ended question that demands a yes or no answer). I will respond to this that political correctness is a 'bandaid' fix for gender/race issues. Which is a view I think the original poster is trying to intend? In any case, the subject falls under identity politics (IP), and IP is not about 'getting over peoples' differences' (there are different theories of solving this problem - if it is a problem in the first place).

The second question however is the first example of how the questions have no relations to one and other. Rational measures, political correctness, identity politics, and human nature are all topics that are intertwined (think of them as 'tags' when you're searching for videos on youtube; they're all relevant subjects). I can certainly link them together to make a worth discussion however the original poster provides no clear method of linking the two questions together.

The third question is just plain wrong. "liberty, equality, and fraternity" is a misquotation that means different things. The commonly paraphrased quote is liberte, egalite, fraternite - from the French revolution (and they DO NOT translate to liberty, equality, fraternity - they have their own 19th century definitions). Although the French Revolution was part of the late Enlightenment era, it certainly does not represent its only ideals.

The question also implies that the Enlightenment ideals are no longer 'used' in the 21st century. This is clearly a mistake. It assumes that the history of philosophy are divided into sections of time and space seperate from one and other. Liberalism in 21st century is distintively different from the number of conceptions of liberalism during the French revolution and the Enlightenment era.

However, this does not mean that today's liberalism have abandoned its heritage. Because even if it wanted to, it couldn't. History is unforgettable, and philosophical ideas exist as layers of different thoughts built on top of one and other (that's how I view it); they are also open to different interpretation and reinterpretation. But it is impossible to argue that liberalism of the past is NOT feasible (let alone ask the question if it is feasible or not) with the world's limited resources. The question assumes that contemporary thinkers in the late 19th century assumed that the world had unlimited resources; certainly this was the dominant view, but not necessarily the realistic view. In fact, what are political theories/philosophies about? Redistribution of resources; whether or not it was limited or not, thinkers had different ideas on how to 'deal with it all'. To cut this section short, the third question fails to take into account the history and nature of political thought (actually it fails to take account of history as a whole).

The fourth question is frankly unnecessary to ask. The first three questions - although indirectly related to one and other - would eventually lead the responses to provide a possible outcome etc. Therefore it is unnecessary. However, it could confuse the people by asking explicitly, rather than implicitly. It is like me asking you, a series of questions in the following manner.
1+1 = ?
One plus one is equal to two, am I correct?
By asking the first question, you would have figured out the answer to the second question, however, because I ask you explicitly what the answer to the first question, it can be viewed as a 'trick question' or something else all together. Therefore unnecessary hindrance to this thought discussion.

Some have said that internet forum responses should be short and sweet. I disagree. Forums have historical roots in the Enlightenment period where essays were posted on physical boards; where intellectuals and the lay participated in vague anonymity. Hence the bleedin' long rant I posted (that which you just read). Because the original poster always makes the same mistake in their 'philosophical' topics. They forget about SEX.

Proposing a discussion should be laid out by the laws of SEX.

Statement
Explanation
Example

I know it actually spells SEE, but that's boring. Hence SEeX (SEX).

And so begins my brief response to 'CAN WE SUCCESSFULLY OVERCOME WHAT WE KNOW AS 'HUMAN NATURE'?'

The short answer is no. Because human nature cannot be overcome. HOWEVER. That response is seriously flawed. What is human nature? Which conception do we refer to? Is it universal? And what is a rational measure? Would one rational measure suffice to overcome a single conception of human nature? Do we require different rational measures for overcoming different aspects of one particular conceptions of human nature?

I repeat, the original poster should have led this discussion with a statement (i.e. proposing his statement); providing his explanation, and his example. Give us your SEX. And your view on your own question so that we can respond to you.

*deep panting breath after typing so much in one go*

yabasta

[derrek]

My dad can beat up your dad

[HERMIT]

Is this supposed to be some kind of tricky question?

Maybe not, but hell - ¡¥αβαstaα¡ sure provided us with one tricky answer.

[xkrndreamer]

My dad can beat up your dad

haha, i like this response.

[yabasta]

@ derrek - I knew it! I bow to your victorious father!

yabasta

[boka]

Touching on what ¡¥αβαstaα¡ said; I can sense the general question you're trying to ask by looking at your post as a whole but I agree that your wording is pretty bad.

It all comes off as vague and incoherent.

[ManekiNeko~*]

Do you believe that rational measures can overcome human nature? Y/N?

For instance, these are just some of the various examples and I hope they doesn't limit the scope of the conversation:

(ex) Will political correctness allow people of different races and genders to overcome their innate differences?

(ex) Were the Enlightenment ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" really feasible in a world of limited resources?



Given enough time into the future, what do you think is possible?

What do you mean by "overcome"? I'm not sure that'll ever happen but I'm pretty sure if it brings negativity to the society or decreases fitness, then the ideas are likely to evolve via natural selection.

[avant-garde]

You all must read "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" by Ray Kurzweil. it will enlighten you.

One thing you must realize is that when neohumans evolve due to rapidly self-enhancing intelligence, it is difficult to predict the nature of future human economics. Trying to model the behavior of beings that are vastly more intelligent than we are as of today is a tricky task.

[Temoin la Nuit]

No. We will not overcome "human nature", because hug-prone liberals are the only ones trying to do so.

If this one day happens, though, me and my merry band of evil capitalists will band together to rob the system.

Yarrrrr!

[questions987]

^^^ ROTFLMAO

[2redJake]

Some have said that internet forum responses should be short and sweet. I disagree. Forums have historical roots in the Enlightenment period where essays were posted on physical boards; where intellectuals and the lay participated in vague anonymity. Hence the bleedin' long rant I posted (that which you just read). Because the original poster always makes the same mistake in their 'philosophical' topics. They forget about SEX.

Proposing a discussion should be laid out by the laws of SEX.

Statement
Explanation
Example

I know it actually spells SEE, but that's boring. Hence SEeX (SEX).

Yabasta

It as always been my understanding that there is a fourth law:

Know your audience.

If the op were to frame his discussion with the degree of stringency that you are requiring of him, wouldn't he lose the great majority of his intended audience here on soompi? I do agree with you that forums can be a great resource for the dissemination of ideas, but only if it's the appropriate forum. If he were to post his original topic on a board with an emphasis on academic issues, then I would agree - his post would be highly problematic.

But most of us here are still undergrads, or in my case, recently graduated. Many others are busy parents or bored office workers. But all of us, I'm assuming, just want a little diversion from the routines of our days. That's why we come to Soompi and not to read a treatise on the different facets of human nature, which is what would be necessary in order to meet the specificity that you outline. I know I wouldn't have, even though I am interested in this subject. That's not why I come to Soompi.

Given this, I didn't see a problem with the original post. He took his audience and context into consideration, and his post did what it was supposed to do: outline a topic in very broad terms, let the people take from it what they will, and kick start a discussion, however superficial it may be.

Let me put it in another way: How is what avant-garde written any different from the thousands of threads on here where people talk about such deeply complicated issues such as love, abuse and finance in such a perfunctory manner? Would you require such stringency on all these topics? If not, then why not? And if so, aren’t you asking Soompi to become something completely different from what it was originally meant to be? These aren’t really rhetorical questions. I am genuinely interested in your response btw.

Personally, I believe there's a place for the kind of post you want, and the kind of posts that are regularly posted here on Soompi, including avant-garde's. Even with all of their problems.

Sorry in advance if I misrepresented any of your points. I enjoy your posts normally. Just happen to disagree with you on this one.

Jake.