Damned good thinking. One observation for now : We have evolved --take your pick, by pure natural selection of by selection plus design-- to understand our place in our environment and, to some extent, ourselves. This hardly means that we don't have major capacity for self-deception, nor that in seeking to understand the world we live in, we may ascribe false causality to phenomena. What this does say, however, via argument from the fact that we survive and generally flourish, is that we have an edge within us, and that what Chris likes about an optimistic outlook is grounded in reality and therefore belongs in a philosophy intended to be realistic about life and our limitations. Billy =============================================== --------------------------------------------------- I agree that the logical flow is good, but the feeling I got when reading Mike’s posting was very heavy. It lacked the feeling of optimism that I liked so much from his earlier postings. My short response is that the admission of human imperfection is not in necessarily connected with hopelessness or a gloomy outlook. We can always improve. We can strive for improve-ability; and in so doing, we have a chance of seeing improvements. In my life I have seen the breakdown of apartheid, segregation in the US, a growth in prosperity and the standard of living in the US, etc. I am optimistic about the future even if I don’t believe that we will ever achieve perfection. Chris
1/11/2012 2:05:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: So this is where we are... I think: 1a) There are objective facts that exist independent of human experience 1b) These objective facts, when taken collectively, contain all of existence 1c) A fact is a piece of incontrovertible truth which exists at a specific point in time, or over a length of time 2) Under no circumstances can humans be perfect (or optimized) 3) As a result, humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts Result: No claim by humans of objective truth can be correct. Humans can only have working rules. 1) Humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts 2a) Humans can improve their situation by applying solutions based on correct understanding of facts 2b) The human situation is the current state of either a single person, a group, or collective humanity 3) As a result, humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect Result: There is a distinction between "correct knowledge", which can help humanity improve its situation, and "perfect knowledge", which is an impossibility involving total understanding. 1) Humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect 2a) Humans can improve their situation through careful study and application of innovation 2b) Innovation is anything created or concocted by humans that exists outside of nature 3) As a result, careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity's situation, though imperfectly Result: Broad (ideological, say) rules don't suffice in improving the human situation. 1) Careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity's situation, though imperfectly 2) Even though facts don't change, our understanding of facts can change 3) As a result, our imperfection in applying innovations is a reflection of a lack of understanding Result: When we change our position, it's not an admission that we don't think facts are absolute- it's that we were wrong. Overall, we've: a) retained eternal objectivity, and removed objective truth from the controlling hands of humans b) removed human perfectibility from consideration (destroying communism), yet protected things like transhumanism and futurism as incremental enhancement c) defended the ability of humanity to continue solving problems d) wholesale destroyed broad "moral imperative" ideologies (socialism, modern progressivism, evangelicalism), in favor of incrementalism On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > wrote: Hi all, On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: > My concern involves the seeming contradiction between believing that we can improve the human condition, and the belief that we don't necessarily know what's best for ourselves, which leads to the logical conclusion that we conduct aimless action. If there's no contradiction, and humility means something to the effect of "understanding our role within the construct of a whole society and the universe", then that eliminates the contradiction. Rather, that makes humility akin to "self awareness", which brings into play Socrates' and Thales' exhortations to "know thyself". If that's the case, then I agree, we can avoid the terms "pride" and "humility", until they're extremely carefully defined. > > It would create a situation, though, where we would need to know where to place "excellence" in all this. We want people to exceed expectations and create all these technological and medical advances to address all the ills in the world but, at the same time, we seemingly want to express that this advancement means nothing in the long run. How do we get people to continue to press the boundaries of human achievement? Excellent discussion. Mike actually touches on the critical tension: we need to believe we know what is best to make improvement, yet an unhealthy certitude that we are right is usually disastrous. Excessive humility is as dangerous as excessive pride. The word I've coined to resolve that tension is the "prefuture". That is, we are creating a better world, and we have a pretty good idea of the next step, but we'll never finish, and we're never going to get it 100% right. We are for improve-ability, but against perfectibility. I agree that there is a tension between humility as "knowing my place within a rigid social system" and 'knowing my proper place in the cosmos." And to be sure, the latter is a fiendishly difficult question to answer properly. Alas, like Billy, I don't know a better term, especially from within the Christian tradition. That said, for many purposes the word "modest" might serve, especially as an adjective. A "modest progressivism" would capture the spirit of what we're doing, at least when talking to the Right. E -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
