Tweet
Eli 
Well written, sir.
-Arrian
Well written, sir.-Arrian
-
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood. -
The "inherent" connection between war and religion Kid seems to make is absurd. There can be several reasons for war, but early on group survival and scarcity of resources belong to the most important. Religion and ideology can play an important role, but that mainly was a later development.BlahComment
-
I'm not saying it's not plausible in a remote sense. Just that from what I've read and studied (mostly history of native american cultures in California), that h/g societies weren't like that.Originally posted by Arrian
What? How do you know this? Why is my scenario not plausible?
And the question arises as to why they became agricultural and then more agricultural. In many cases they were displaced, but I think that religion caused societies to become ever more agricultural. Possibly that is because the two are hand in hand and the religious/agricultural societies displaced the h/g societies.I'm not discussing h/g societies, but rather early agricultural ones. Sorry if that was confusing.
-ArrianI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
I think we are talking about one society who already has plenty of resources conquering another society for greedy reasons or religious at that. We aren't talking about a hungry h/g society using up another h/g society food resource and causing a conflict.Originally posted by BeBro
The "inherent" connection between war and religion Kid seems to make is absurd. There can be several reasons for war, but early on group survival and scarcity of resources belong to the most important. Religion and ideology can play an important role, but that mainly was a later development.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If Aristotles capacity for happiness is only dependent on his personality type then why can't he be happy in all societies.Originally posted by Eli
I was saying something slightly more complex. But since I spread it around a few posts I guess it's easy to misunderstand. I'll explain my stance now.
A person's capacity to live a fulfilling life is determined by the person's personality and psychology, not by his circumstances. So the archetypal shallow, SUV driving, MTV watching, stuck in the rat race, compulsive consumer who's supposedly not living a fulfilling life will not be living such a life under any other circumstances. Such a person will never use the opportunities his circumstances offer him.
And on the other side of the spectrum, a deeper person with good introspection skills, who knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff, have meaningful relations with others, etc, will always use the opportunities his environment offers to live a more fulfilling life.
As a thought experiment, imagine a person's with Aristotle's personality living in a hunter gatherer society, in Aristotle's own time and in our society.
Generally speaking, curiosity about nature is probably the main defining characteristic of our Aristotles. A satisfaction of this desire goes most of the way towards making such a person's life a fulfilling one.
The hunter gatherer Aristotle will track the stars, observe animals, analyze rock formations, try to categorize people's personalities and generally philosophize about the universe.
But he will be alone. In his tiny society, he will probably be the only one who's interested in most of these stuff and almost the only one intellectually capable of doing so. He will also be the first who does so, so he'll be doing everything from scratch. He will have no paper or parchment on which to write, significantly hampering his efforts, maybe he'll go blind early and will not be able to continue with his studies.
The classical Aristotle will do what the historical Aristotle did. But he'll have other people, similar to him. He'll have the Lyceum, he'll have access to the body of knowledge gathered by previous generations, he'll have papyrus paper.
And the modern Aristotle will have modern universities and masses of people who share his interests. He'll have the internet and easy access to millions of studies, experiment results, etc. And thanks to specialization, he'll be able to devote most of his time towards satisfying his curiosity and therefore living a more fulfilling life. A life which will also be more painless, longer and more varied.
All three Aristotles can utilize a big percentage of the opportunities the universe gives them towards living more fulfilling lives, but modern Aristotles will have more of those opportunities than earlier ones.
The mistake that you're making is taking on one hand an idealized person in a hunter gatherer society who is perfectly "attuned" to life, and the average modern human with all his shortcomings. Why don't you compare apples to apples? Take some brutish, ignorant, shallow guy you know and imagine him in a prehistorical society. Will he be different?
And what does this have to do with the common man? In primative society the common man hunted for a few hours a day and relaxed for the rest with time to ponder astrology. The common man in feudal society only had time to work the soil. Now the common man works in a sweet shop all day, or some other job.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Capacity as the percent of the opportunities one uses to enhance one's life out of all opportunities available. Not as the actual level of happiness.Originally posted by Kidicious
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If Aristotles capacity for happiness is only dependent on his personality type then why can't he be happy in all societies.
Society does not affect a specific person's capacity for happiness, but it does affect the number of opportunities he has. And in that regard our society is superior to all who came before it.
And what does this have to do with the common man? In primative society the common man hunted for a few hours a day and relaxed for the rest with time to ponder astrology.
No. He spent the rest of the time wondering whether that scratch he got will develop into a gangrene and whether his child will survive his first year of life.
And if he was lucky enough to not have these problems, the common man would probably gather up with a few other common men and they will spend the day seeing who can throw a stone the farthest or share wildly exaggerated hunting stories. Pretty much the same as Counter Strike and IRC chats, only without the chance of gangrene."Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.Comment
-
More likely, he'd spend an hour or two plucking lice out of his friend's greasy head, ***** about his toothache, worry about whether he'd stored enough food to get through the winter without starving, and try to avoid the amorous advances of his smelly, hairy wife.Originally posted by Kidicious
And what does this have to do with the common man? In primative society the common man hunted for a few hours a day and relaxed for the rest with time to ponder astrology.THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
But hey, at least he lived in harmony with nature
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
In that regard I grant you, but people can generally be as happy as they choose to be so long as they aren't administered pain or over worked, things like that.Originally posted by Eli
Capacity as the percent of the opportunities one uses to enhance one's life out of all opportunities available. Not as the actual level of happiness.
Society does not affect a specific person's capacity for happiness, but it does affect the number of opportunities he has. And in that regard our society is superior to all who came before it.
If he chose to worry about things like that he would also worry if he were born into a modern society, because he has chosen to worry. I don't care if you want to talk about 100 years from now, he will still worry no matter what the circumstance.And what does this have to do with the common man? In primative society the common man hunted for a few hours a day and relaxed for the rest with time to ponder astrology.
No. He spent the rest of the time wondering whether that scratch he got will develop into a gangrene and whether his child will survive his first year of life.
And if he was lucky enough to not have these problems, the common man would probably gather up with a few other common men and they will spend the day seeing who can throw a stone the farthest or share wildly exaggerated hunting stories. Pretty much the same as Counter Strike and IRC chats, only without the chance of gangrene.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
A point I was trying to make pages and pages ago was that people will stress about stuff regardless of the society they're in. You were arguing that there was definitely less stress in h/g societies as compared to our society today. I don't agree - I think a worrier would find things to worry about back then too.If he chose to worry about things like that he would also worry if he were born into a modern society, because he has chosen to worry.
Apparently, you are now with me.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Where does this horse**** about the development of agriculture come from? I thought it was pretty clear that the historical consensus around this was that seditary agriculture became a necessity because hunter-gatherers depleated the natural resources to the point where they needed to develop a more stable source of food. It's a total myth that hunter-gatherers lived in harmony with nature.
Kid -you may want to expand your readings on native North Americans. Many groups never developed agriculture, and yet developed religious beliefs and systems and in certain places over-hunted game to the point of local extinction. There were also recognized property rights and hierarchical societies, all without domesticated plants or animals.
Here's a place to start:
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
No, I'm not. I think people are more stressed out now.Originally posted by Arrian
A point I was trying to make pages and pages ago was that people will stress about stuff regardless of the society they're in. You were arguing that there was definitely less stress in h/g societies as compared to our society today. I don't agree - I think a worrier would find things to worry about back then too.
Apparently, you are now with me.
-Arrian
It's like this. I'm generally not a worrier. Certainly I was not when I was younger. Then I went threw all kinds of stressfull situations dealing with work and divorce. I think that made me more of a worrier. It's kind of like PTS. The stress has made me more reactionary to stress. Now just a little bit of stress and i feel it in my stomach big time.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Ref: OP
Pekka I agree with you. Good ideas spread across the world faster than ever due to the internet. These ideas are assimilated and more than that, expose lies and reduce hatred.
The enemy of peace and prosperity are those who would control communication, deny access to ideas and instead foster hate in any form.
To the extent religion fosters hate, religion is evil. Ditto any ideology that relies on hatred.
Free, uncensored communication allows us to see the lies and false promises of the hate mongers. Communication is the most important reason the world is a better place today.http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=enComment
-
Gotta agree with Ned on that.
-Arrian
p.s. Did I just lose?grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
It's no consensus at all. There is no proof either way. Maybe some developed agriculture out of necessity and some developed it for religious reasons. I believe the more populare theory is that most developed it for religious reasons.Originally posted by Kontiki
Where does this horse**** about the development of agriculture come from? I thought it was pretty clear that the historical consensus around this was that seditary agriculture became a necessity because hunter-gatherers depleated the natural resources to the point where they needed to develop a more stable source of food. It's a total myth that hunter-gatherers lived in harmony with nature.
What the hell is wrong with you people that you have to tell me something that I know as if you are arguing with me?!Kid -you may want to expand your readings on native North Americans. Many groups never developed agriculture, and yet developed religious beliefs and systems and in certain places over-hunted game to the point of local extinction.
I don't know what society you are refering to, but what is your point? I'm not at all clear about what you are arguing with me about.There were also recognized property rights and hierarchical societies, all without domesticated plants or animals.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment