Is there an ideology of knowledge?

[ZenMuadDib]

Will knowledge really make us better people and does it really matter?

[vicdan]

Yes, and yes.

[ZenMuadDib]

Yes, and yes.

Err, why? Don't we use our knowledge to exert our influence over other people and not necessarily to express our love and compassion?

[vicdan]

You can say the same about science for example, but science has undeniably made our world a better place.

[ZenMuadDib]

You can say the same about science for example, but science has undeniably made our world a better place.

It has done that in order to perpetuate its influence and maybe domination, hasn't it? It must not be absolute reality then?

[Imadrongo]

You can say the same about science for example, but science has undeniably made our world a better place.

"Better" according to your standards maybe.

Knowledge and science are things that should probably be kept away from the low class or the slaves, lest they become smarter than their masters and revolt.

[Boyan]

You can say the same about science for example, but science has undeniably made our world a better place.

"Better" according to your standards maybe.

You miss the plague, church authority being strong, inquisitors burning people for fun...?

Knowledge and science are things that should probably be kept away from the low class or the slaves, lest they become smarter than their masters and revolt.

Oh sure, like what the church did for a long time, and halted the progress of knowledge and mankind, while killing intelligent men and women in the process.

You truly seem like a word by word, dogmatic follower of Nietzsche. Though I don't see how such a thing is possible since Nietzsche himself often changed his views.

[Pincho Paxton]

Will knowledge really make us better people and does it really matter?

Have you ever looked at the truly stupid people on this planet? I mean the people with learning difficulties. They really struggle through life.

Call them Knowledge = 100

Then increase knowledge, and also increase 'brain energy' until you reach YOU.

What you will find is that brain energy is as satisfying as food, or water. The more information you can gather that is correct, the more energy is stored in your brain to hold your information in place. Your brain becomes a battery for confidence, happiness, contentment. This is a working brain.

Lower the brain energy in the opposite direction, and you get depressed.

There are certain illnesses that keep the brain energy high without any learning required. Mongolism is one of these. These people are born happy, but have no need to learn, and no hunger for knowledge. A permanently contented mind.

But when you have a fully functioning body, you will find that learning is a food for the brain.

There is also the afterlife to consider. What will you become in the next stage? (Just added that for you to decide. I already have my own oppinion.)

[vicdan]

It has done that in order to perpetuate its influence and maybe domination, hasn't it? It must not be absolute reality then?

Huh? WTF is 'absolute reality'? is it like divine grace and Jesus dying for our sins?

[vicdan]

"Better" according to your standards maybe

And the standards of people who like decent life expectancy, 40-hour workweek, and not having to deal with a third of their children dying before reaching adulthood.

Knowledge and science are things that should probably be kept away from the low class or the slaves, lest they become smarter than their masters and revolt.

You are truly an idiot, you know that?

[Tomas]

Will knowledge really make us better people and does it really matter?

If the "us" is speaking of humanity as a whole... i'd say no.

If you're referring to the posting-majority of (worldly) genius forum members... perhaps.

If you're referring to you and me... obviously yes.

Does it matter... really?... nope.

Drop the two really's (realities) and stick to one.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Imadrongo]

"Better" according to your standards maybe

And the standards of people who like decent life expectancy, 40-hour workweek, and not having to deal with a third of their children dying before reaching adulthood.

Is this comment meant to be an argumetum ad populum or appeal to sentimental notions that I don't share?

Knowledge and science are things that should probably be kept away from the low class or the slaves, lest they become smarter than their masters and revolt.

You are truly an idiot, you know that?

Why do you say this? I'm just trying to provide an alternate perspective on knowledge.

[vicdan]

"Better" according to your standards maybe

And the standards of people who like decent life expectancy, 40-hour workweek, and not having to deal with a third of their children dying before reaching adulthood.

The majority agree with you...

And how else do you propose to determine what constitutes the world being a 'better place'?

is this comment meant to be an argumetum ad populum or appeal to sentimental notions that I don't share?

No, moron, it's supposed to go stratospherically over your head.

Why do you say this? I'm just trying to provide an alternate perspective on knowledge.

You aren't succeeding. You aren't providing any perspective, just idiotic BS without coherent content.

[Imadrongo]

And how else do you propose to determine what constitutes the world being a 'better place'?

Based on our own values, whether the majority agree or not. What is "better" is simply a value judgment. You may view peace as better and I may view war as better.

is this comment meant to be an argumetum ad populum or appeal to sentimental notions that I don't share?

No, moron, it's supposed to go stratospherically over your head.

:rolleyes: Your comment was basically an affirmation of your belonging to the "herd" -- knowledge is "better" because it causes less suffering, universal equality, etc. Are you afraid of suffering and do you stand to gain from a great equalization?

[ZenMuadDib]

It has done that in order to perpetuate its influence and maybe domination, hasn't it? It must not be absolute reality then?

Huh? WTF is 'absolute reality'? is it like divine grace and Jesus dying for our sins?

No, it is the reality beyond the so-called reality people have created in order for civilization to continue.

[Boyan]

And how else do you propose to determine what constitutes the world being a 'better place'?

Based on our own values, whether the majority agree or not. What is "better" is simply a value judgment. You may view peace as better and I may view war as better.

is this comment meant to be an argumetum ad populum or appeal to sentimental notions that I don't share?

No, moron, it's supposed to go stratospherically over your head.

:rolleyes: Your comment was basically an affirmation of your belonging to the "herd" -- knowledge is "better" because it causes less suffering, universal equality, etc. Are you afraid of suffering and do you stand to gain from a great equalization?

Neil, you want to suffer? Well, What's stopping you? Come on, throw away those technological advances that deprive you of your God given right to suffer.

Have you read anything except Nietzsche in your entire life?

I see you have not answered to my previous post.

[Alex Jacob]

Neil wrote:

"Is this comment meant to be an argumentum ad populum or appeal to sentimental notions that I don't share?"

I have been waiting for Neil to arrive at the 'post-classical Nietzschean realizations', but it hasn't happened yet. ;-) But, I think it is somewhat forgivable, since Nietzsche is a weird medicine to drink. You've only turned a little bit green so far, Neil...

It is true in general terms that the desire to 'make life better' is to make life more comfortable, and that we strive toward comfort, but this comfort (reduction of pain and conflict for example) is not necessarily the best thing for us. But I propose to you that Nietzsche's medicines cannot be applied to a literal social context, and that it is a mistake in reading him to think they can. It seems to me---I propose to you---that Nietzsche can only function internally, on an individual. Nietzsche applied externally leads to tangible disasters; but applied internally, more often than not to interesting growth and 'spiritual progress'. Nietzsche is for psychologists and poets, not for statesmen.

It is kind of horribly true that the most difficult experiences I have lived, the ones I would much rather have avoided, are the ones that brought me the most benefit. In so many ways Nietzsche seemed to have sensed something right: that Europe was tending toward a balanced condition that had 'mediocre' characteristics. Hermann Hesse, in Demian, romanticized the coming war (WW1), the war everyone felt was coming, and chose, or needed, to see the destruction as a catharsis, as a creature struggling to release itself from its egg. But his story was more than anything a map of an inner journey.

[vicdan]

And how else do you propose to determine what constitutes the world being a 'better place'?

Based on our own values, whether the majority agree or not. What is "better" is simply a value judgment. You may view peace as better and I may view war as better.

And yet you accused me of judging 'better' by my own standards!

Dissemble much, kiddo?

:rolleyes: Your comment was basically an affirmation of your belonging to the "herd" -- knowledge is "better" because it causes less suffering,

And every enlightened person knows that suffering is good -- hence Buddhism, the very purpose for being of which is to maximize suffering.

Dude, you are a bloody screaming idiot.

[vicdan]

Neil, you want to suffer? Well, What's stopping you? Come on, throw away those technological advances that deprive you of your God given right to suffer.

Have you read anything except Nietzsche in your entire life?

To ascribe excessive infatuation with Nietzsche to Neil is a category error, IMO, kinda like ascribing a fascination with firefighting to a dog pissing on a fire hydrant.

it is also an insult to Nietzsche...

[Imadrongo]

And every enlightened person knows that suffering is good -- hence Buddhism, the very purpose for being of which is to maximize suffering.

Dude, you are a bloody screaming idiot.

I don't know what you are talking about anymore. Buddhism is about evading suffering as is your morality.

You believe knowledge is a good thing because it raises the standard of living, brings about technology, reduces suffering, etc. Are these good things though? I view them as bad things. Don't get me wrong, knowledge is definitely something I pursue, but I don't want everyone else to have it.

The difference between myself and you is that I don't get emotional and upset when other people are suffering whereas you do. Your solution to their problems: more knowledge. The opposite solution would be: less knowledge -- more suffering, more death, more stupidity, easier to control/manipulate, etc. This is what I originally suggested, that knowledge is a bad thing for slaves because it gives them more power than they need and will lead to revolt.

[Philosophaster]

You believe knowledge is a good thing because it raises the standard of living, brings about technology, reduces suffering, etc. Are these good things though? I view them as bad things. Don't get me wrong, knowledge is definitely something I pursue, but I don't want everyone else to have it.

Why?

Facts do not logically imply Victor's values, of course. But neither do they imply yours or anyone else's.

[Imadrongo]

It is true in general terms that the desire to 'make life better' is to make life more comfortable, and that we strive toward comfort, but this comfort (reduction of pain and conflict for example) is not necessarily the best thing for us. But I propose to you that Nietzsche's medicines cannot be applied to a literal social context, and that it is a mistake in reading him to think they can. It seems to me---I propose to you---that Nietzsche can only function internally, on an individual. Nietzsche applied externally leads to tangible disasters; but applied internally, more often than not to interesting growth and 'spiritual progress'. Nietzsche is for psychologists and poets, not for statesmen.

Are disasters bad or good? Nietzsche seems to have thought highly of them. I agree Nietzsche is directed towards the individual. After, say, the individual sees through Christian-morality, religions, etc, how do you then think he should act? Surely not go out and do altruistic acts, but instead bring about "disasters" if necessary to pursue his goals/values.

It is kind of horribly true that the most difficult experiences I have lived, the ones I would much rather have avoided, are the ones that brought me the most benefit.

Definitely.

In so many ways Nietzsche seemed to have sensed something right: that Europe was tending toward a balanced condition that had 'mediocre' characteristics. Hermann Hesse, in Demian, romanticized the coming war (WW1), the war everyone felt was coming, and chose, or needed, to see the destruction as a catharsis, as a creature struggling to release itself from its egg. But his story was more than anything a map of an inner journey.

It is easy to see that Christian-morality, democracy, etc leads to a mediocre society. The herd seeks to eliminate both extremes of men -- the degenerates and the men above them. As Nietzsche said: they are not creative whatsoever, they aim to make all equal, content, secure, etc.

I haven't read Hesse.

[Imadrongo]

You believe knowledge is a good thing because it raises the standard of living, brings about technology, reduces suffering, etc. Are these good things though? I view them as bad things. Don't get me wrong, knowledge is definitely something I pursue, but I don't want everyone else to have it.

Why?

Too many idiots these days don't seem to realize: Humanitarianism is directly opposed to environmentalism. Raising the standard of living in Brazil involves cutting down the tropical forests. Lowering air pollution, waste, destruction of forests, etc involves lowering production of goods and energy required to maintain a standard of living by humans. There is a limited amount of resources on earth and hence the human population here is limited.

Helping others harms myself. Helping others involves sacrificing part of myself. The more people on earth, and the higher their quality of living, the more competition with me for limited resources and the more pollution of the earth that sustains myself (as well as the rest of us).

It is not rational at all for me to help others. I would rather the starving kids in Africa were left to starve. The more we save from starvation, the more to have more kids... to starve. I would rather the homeless people who are too handicapped, indolent or impotent to get a job died off. By keeping them alive we promote indolence and impotence, whether directly or indirectly.

If you got to make this choice which would you take?
1) All people approximately equal, mediocre, content, non-suffering, OR
2) You are in an elite group (aristocracy) and the majority are dumb slaves who support your through their labor.

What would you pick if you were sure to get your pick? How about if there was only a 20% chance of getting into the aristocracy if you picked it, and 80% of being a slave?

It is stupid to take the first, but I suspect most moralists would. Why? When you look at someone suffering you suffer. When you look at the weak and pitiful you cringe inside. Why? Because you identify with them. Those who identify with the weak and pitiful have something weak and pitiful in them.

For example, take homelessness. When you see a poor homeless man freezing on the streets do you pity him? If so, you can picture yourself being in that position. On the other hand if you realize that you could get off the streets if you tried, if you ever ended up in his position, you would no longer empathize with the guy.

In sum: those who identify with the weak are weak themselves. These people like to talk about homelessness as being "a run of bad luck", which means that the only difference between themselves and a suffering homeless person is completely out of their control.

Those who would rather pick equality for all than risk the high chance of being a slave are at the pinnacle of selfishness. Protecting the weak (by equalizing) as a means of self-protection.

Realize that there is no inherent value to human life. The planet would be no worse off without humans. The planet would actually be better off, better=less one-sided equilibrium (more sustainable), with less humans.

edit --
Of course you can argue that it is sheer luck to be born as a starving African. I personally think -- oh well, who told you life is "fair"? Make the best of it. There is nothing "wrong" with dying soon. After you die what will that "suffering" mean to you? Nothing, so who cares? There is a good opportunity to live a fulfilling, albeit short, life over there -- there is lots of struggle, conflict, purpose, etc. God did not command us to try and eliminate randomness and "luck" from life. Those who wish to do so are afraid of it, and thus want to eliminate it.

[ZenMuadDib]

You believe knowledge is a good thing because it raises the standard of living, brings about technology, reduces suffering, etc. Are these good things though? I view them as bad things. Don't get me wrong, knowledge is definitely something I pursue, but I don't want everyone else to have it.

Why?

Too many idiots these days don't seem to realize: Humanitarianism is directly opposed to environmentalism. Raising the standard of living in Brazil involves cutting down the tropical forests. Lowering air pollution, waste, destruction of forests, etc involves lowering production of goods and energy required to maintain a standard of living by humans. There is a limited amount of resources on earth and hence the human population here is limited.

Helping others harms myself. Helping others involves sacrificing part of myself. The more people on earth, and the higher their quality of living, the more competition with me for limited resources and the more pollution of the earth that sustains myself (as well as the rest of us).

It is not rational at all for me to help others. I would rather the starving kids in Africa were left to starve. The more we save from starvation, the more to have more kids... to starve. I would rather the homeless people who are too handicapped, indolent or impotent to get a job died off. By keeping them alive we promote indolence and impotence, whether directly or indirectly.

If you got to make this choice which would you take?
1) All people approximately equal, mediocre, content, non-suffering, OR
2) You are in an elite group (aristocracy) and the majority are dumb slaves who support your through their labor.

What would you pick if you were sure to get your pick? How about if there was only a 20% chance of getting into the aristocracy if you picked it, and 80% of being a slave?

It is stupid to take the first, but I suspect most moralists would. Why? When you look at someone suffering you suffer. When you look at the weak and pitiful you cringe inside. Why? Because you identify with them. Those who identify with the weak and pitiful have something weak and pitiful in them.

For example, take homelessness. When you see a poor homeless man freezing on the streets do you pity him? If so, you can picture yourself being in that position. On the other hand if you realize that you could get off the streets if you tried, if you ever ended up in his position, you would no longer empathize with the guy.

In sum: those who identify with the weak are weak themselves. These people like to talk about homelessness as being "a run of bad luck", which means that the only difference between themselves and a suffering homeless person is completely out of their control.

Those who would rather pick equality for all than risk the high chance of being a slave are at the pinnacle of selfishness. Protecting the weak (by equalizing) as a means of self-protection.

Realize that there is no inherent value to human life. The planet would be no worse off without humans. The planet would actually be better off, better=less one-sided equilibrium (more sustainable), with less humans.

edit --
Of course you can argue that it is sheer luck to be born as a starving African. I personally think -- oh well, who told you life is "fair"? Make the best of it. There is nothing "wrong" with dying soon. After you die what will that "suffering" mean to you? Nothing, so who cares? There is a good opportunity to live a fulfilling, albeit short, life over there -- there is lots of struggle, conflict, purpose, etc. God did not command us to try and eliminate randomness and "luck" from life. Those who wish to do so are afraid of it, and thus want to eliminate it.

I am pretty sure that the problem is not a shortage of food, it is the over consumption of food by others.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Neil,

You are only seeing part of the story. I agree that helping third world countries remain third world countries is counterproductive, as it doesn’t accomplish anything. However, encouraging countries to modernize and expand their economies actually lowers population levels over the long-term, and actually reduces some forms of environmental destruction.

Moreover, putting more money into better technology to create energy should be encouraged, while also encouraging third world countries to slowly modernize. There is nothing wrong with working towards improving the quality of life for people because it increases the number of intelligent individuals, and increases the overall IQ of the species.

For instance: China and India modernizing will increase the numbers of educated individuals, and an educated population will behave much more rationally than an uneducated, superstitious dogmatic population. Their economic growth should actually lower their population levels, and if the western world are good role models for the developing world, then they will actually change to better technology as the west upgrades.

The west helping China and India to modernize will have many negative affects, but those negative affects will cause positive affects, until an equilibrium is reached.