First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
There's No Nature VS Nurture
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/29/09

DomFortress wrote:

Let me be perfectly clear; I am an individualist who believes in individual character strengths and virtues of positive psychology. I am not an atheist who doesn't believe in anything, himself included.


Eh? I never called you a solipsist, let alone a nihilist.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/29/09

NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.


Your words have immense power, but perhaps, there is something you are forgetting. When you said "fluff" you are possibly labeling everything I've said as being, how should I put this, gay? Are you homophobic? If so, that is a dangerous condition, because you will come to fear almost everything around you out of fear of becoming gay yourself.

Sure, the concepts I explored where a bit outlandish... too some. Consider this; we don't know exactly what is going on out there in the wild. And when you said ''mystical'' were you implying that I have some kind of religious beliefs or maybe that what I said was merely rhetorical hocus pocus? Are we not all insane when viewed from afar? Look at things more closely, please. For one, absolutely nothing DomFortress said was vague, you simply failed to grasp the concept of what he was stating.

I question your views on this subject, leviathan. How you seem to partly condemn humanitarianism gives me the feeling that you are possibly one for condemning humanity itself. Making improvements in our world takes what is called effort. Is that something you are afraid of? Is that also a far-flung concept which you would rashly stick labels on? Never forget that the night is darkest before the day.


My bisexuality stews a rabid fear of all things homosexual. Perfectly logical.

We know what's happening in the wild. Animals are killing each other and raising families and living symbiotically while beating the crap out of each other. Things are destroyed, created, changed. The universe goes on without consideration of concepts of "good" and "evil". It simply exists.

I partially condemn humanitarianism because of its unfounded assumptions on what "progress" is. Personally, I see humanitarianism as the atheist attempt to preserve Christian values. Also, "improvement" doesn't include all people in it.

So much of what Dom said implicated vague relationships and vague concepts. Obviously he's not making a philosophy out of it, but it's pretty hard to follow when he gives it all at once. Not to mention his lines of thought often wander. Nothing wrong with that, my brain simply doesn't process things like his does.



I see. Your bisexuality is an individual trait of yourself deserving respect. As for good and evil, we know that the concept of it was invented by humanity. It's purpose is for humanity and certainly not for animals in the wild. They do, of course, know what is acceptable in their social structures. Humanitarianism should not be used as a tool for anyone but those feeling that mankind is a creature deserving the right to live. Improvement involves those who want to improve.

DomFortress, I feel, has taken a look at things from numerous perspectives and possibly on dimensions we are likely not capable of knowing. He truly sees nature and nurture as being hand in hand with each other and not opposed because of the effort he put into studying this subject. Our nature certainly decides everything we do, including what we nurture and also if we can change by the capacity and decision to do so. Each person has a unique nature that only they can define from their perspective. Nurturing is, as we know, caring and feeding for something. To nurture is a part of basic nature, and for every nature, there is the choice made as to what that nature prefers to feed. If there was no nurture, everything living would never have existed in the first place. I'd say he made his point well.



I was being sarcastic. My bisexuality deserves neither respect nor disrespect (as existence doesn't work under such judgments), how I choose to express it is another matter.

What we choose to call our nature is entirely subjective. I could argue that every outside influence is part of my being, and if my nature and being are equivalent then there's really nothing to differentiate.

...
Posted 11/29/09

leviathan343 wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.


Your words have immense power, but perhaps, there is something you are forgetting. When you said "fluff" you are possibly labeling everything I've said as being, how should I put this, gay? Are you homophobic? If so, that is a dangerous condition, because you will come to fear almost everything around you out of fear of becoming gay yourself.

Sure, the concepts I explored where a bit outlandish... too some. Consider this; we don't know exactly what is going on out there in the wild. And when you said ''mystical'' were you implying that I have some kind of religious beliefs or maybe that what I said was merely rhetorical hocus pocus? Are we not all insane when viewed from afar? Look at things more closely, please. For one, absolutely nothing DomFortress said was vague, you simply failed to grasp the concept of what he was stating.

I question your views on this subject, leviathan. How you seem to partly condemn humanitarianism gives me the feeling that you are possibly one for condemning humanity itself. Making improvements in our world takes what is called effort. Is that something you are afraid of? Is that also a far-flung concept which you would rashly stick labels on? Never forget that the night is darkest before the day.


My bisexuality stews a rabid fear of all things homosexual. Perfectly logical.

We know what's happening in the wild. Animals are killing each other and raising families and living symbiotically while beating the crap out of each other. Things are destroyed, created, changed. The universe goes on without consideration of concepts of "good" and "evil". It simply exists.

I partially condemn humanitarianism because of its unfounded assumptions on what "progress" is. Personally, I see humanitarianism as the atheist attempt to preserve Christian values. Also, "improvement" doesn't include all people in it.

So much of what Dom said implicated vague relationships and vague concepts. Obviously he's not making a philosophy out of it, but it's pretty hard to follow when he gives it all at once. Not to mention his lines of thought often wander. Nothing wrong with that, my brain simply doesn't process things like his does.



I see. Your bisexuality is an individual trait of yourself deserving respect. As for good and evil, we know that the concept of it was invented by humanity. It's purpose is for humanity and certainly not for animals in the wild. They do, of course, know what is acceptable in their social structures. Humanitarianism should not be used as a tool for anyone but those feeling that mankind is a creature deserving the right to live. Improvement involves those who want to improve.

DomFortress, I feel, has taken a look at things from numerous perspectives and possibly on dimensions we are likely not capable of knowing. He truly sees nature and nurture as being hand in hand with each other and not opposed because of the effort he put into studying this subject. Our nature certainly decides everything we do, including what we nurture and also if we can change by the capacity and decision to do so. Each person has a unique nature that only they can define from their perspective. Nurturing is, as we know, caring and feeding for something. To nurture is a part of basic nature, and for every nature, there is the choice made as to what that nature prefers to feed. If there was no nurture, everything living would never have existed in the first place. I'd say he made his point well.



I was being sarcastic. My bisexuality deserves neither respect nor disrespect (as existence doesn't work under such judgments), how I choose to express it is another matter.

What we choose to call our nature is entirely subjective. I could argue that every outside influence is part of my being, and if my nature and being are equivalent then there's really nothing to differentiate.

...


Sarcasm, eh? I find myself laughing as it seems you came on with a tone hinting sarcasm, yet also, some people will say they were being sarcastic for something to fall back on. No matter. I would say that all things are subjective. There are infinite ways to see things with the same quantity of variables effecting outcomes. Humanity is a being constantly trying to keep itself under control whilst wishing to go completely out of control. Our nature has become something entirely different than what it used to be. Our condition is a gift and a curse making our lives all the more interesting with each passing day.
Posted 11/29/09

leviathan343 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Let me be perfectly clear; I am an individualist who believes in individual character strengths and virtues of positive psychology. I am not an atheist who doesn't believe in anything, himself included.


Eh? I never called you a solipsist, let alone a nihilist.

I was indirectly referring you as an atheist. When I see myself as the sole supreme master of my own moral stance. For that's my definition of my individualism, and it just so happens that my moral stance includes recognizing other individuals for who they are.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.