Poll: Your stance on monogamy?

[Nieroshai]

Religion aside, I'm mainly monogamous because that's the way I'm wired. I'm loyal to the core, yet have only enough patience for one steady partner.

 

[HK_01]

It's right, because that's what the society I live in considers a moral standard. Also, it seems quite natural for humans, otherwise we wouldn't live this way.

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

I read your original post. I still disagree with it. Human biology isn't so diverse. chemically. Most of us are the same. Hormones play a large enough part in our love lives for me to generalise accurately. Normality isn't just a concept. Especially when you're talking about biological normality.

Logic isn't really something that suffers from the passage of time. It can strengthen. But it still follows the same basic pattern as it did thousands of years ago. And hubris aside. It is clearly heading in the right direction. The last few hundred years have been so important scientifically. With the secularisation of societies. Discovery has bloomed. Just because things we've found out will be expanded upon and re-written after we're dead doesn't mean we should act as if we're not correct now. And our current definitions of fairness and truth are all we can act upon. Until someone re-writes them to be more accurate.

And the conclusion from my last post isn?t something I've just arrived at. I've always know the fragility of understanding. I just choose not to let that hinder my though process. We can't imagine the changes the new few hundred years will bring to science. We make do with what we currently understand.

I respectfully disagree. Especially with the logic part.

Logic isn't a separate entity. It's a fragment of human understanding--his fragile spirit and reasoning.

I see what you are saying with us acting upon our available knowledge, now. But all I'm saying is that we need to break this cycle, and come with new standards of knowledge. It may be a futile effort, because as Nietzsche said, "truth is the folly without which certain species can't survive." But that, to me, is no deterrent.

Also, if it may seem that I'm denying the usefulness of science, I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that our faith in it seems unfounded, but that I guess, is the characteristic of faith.

I think that logic itself has changed very little. For instance. The logic behind simple mathematics can't possibly have changed. Because maths is a constant. Although very complex theories are proven and then dis-proven. The basics of maths has been and will always be the same. It's the language that transcends everything. And perhaps the best evidence of logic. I suppose it could be argued that different forms of logic have changed dramatically. But when you saw down to the bone. Logic itself cannot actually change.

I don't think we can come up with a new standard of knowledge. You simply can't know something until someone has hypothesised, explained and tested it. And as you point out nothing can ever be tested to it's fullest. By our very nature. Our slow acquisition of knowledge through trial and error is all we have. We can't just do away with it because it's ineffective. If there are better ways of obtaining knowledge. We don't know about them yet. And our mind's likely can't comprehend let alone decipher them.

We're just working with what we have.

Science is the 21st century religion in many respects. There are still people who make outlandish claims and just expect people to believe them obediently. I for one wouldn't argue with Hawkins on the universe. Even though all he can do is postulate. I'm not intelligent enough to argue with him. But we just have to be as vigilant as possible. Learn and understand what we can, so we're not merely running on an almost religious blind faith in science. The mere fact anyone with any understanding of science admits that everything is debatable is proof enough that we're heading in the right direction. Years ago people dealt in firm absolutes. Science is progressing in the right direction and about as fast as one could hope.

The logic of math hasn't changed? Logic of math has changed. It is only be overlooking the obvious jarring flaws in the logic that has kept it from changing. Kinda like building the tower of Pisa: you know it's crooked, but you keep building upon it because you think it's too expensive to abandon it now. They are a LOT of assumptions when it comes to solving even the simplest of math problems. Logic, again, is your creation--a creation which is obviously flawed.

You're working with what you have, you say, well I'll tell that what you have isn't very much and it isn't very good. You claim that just because science is intelligible, we're heading in the right way. That my friend is very cynical, I tell you; a train track laid with only a few degrees off will lead you very, very far from where you want to be when the continent ends.

There are just as many firm absolutes yesterday as they are today, but what ires me isn't our inability to achieve a perspective beyond man (hence the term, ubermensch), it is our unwillingness to achieve it. The larger society is, I know, fearful of the change and this is what makes society particularly despicable. I always thought Montesquieu was a bit harsh on mankind when he declared us creatures of fear, but I guess he wasn't.

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

I read your original post. I still disagree with it. Human biology isn't so diverse. chemically. Most of us are the same. Hormones play a large enough part in our love lives for me to generalise accurately. Normality isn't just a concept. Especially when you're talking about biological normality.

Logic isn't really something that suffers from the passage of time. It can strengthen. But it still follows the same basic pattern as it did thousands of years ago. And hubris aside. It is clearly heading in the right direction. The last few hundred years have been so important scientifically. With the secularisation of societies. Discovery has bloomed. Just because things we've found out will be expanded upon and re-written after we're dead doesn't mean we should act as if we're not correct now. And our current definitions of fairness and truth are all we can act upon. Until someone re-writes them to be more accurate.

And the conclusion from my last post isn?t something I've just arrived at. I've always know the fragility of understanding. I just choose not to let that hinder my though process. We can't imagine the changes the new few hundred years will bring to science. We make do with what we currently understand.

I respectfully disagree. Especially with the logic part.

Logic isn't a separate entity. It's a fragment of human understanding--his fragile spirit and reasoning.

I see what you are saying with us acting upon our available knowledge, now. But all I'm saying is that we need to break this cycle, and come with new standards of knowledge. It may be a futile effort, because as Nietzsche said, "truth is the folly without which certain species can't survive." But that, to me, is no deterrent.

Also, if it may seem that I'm denying the usefulness of science, I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that our faith in it seems unfounded, but that I guess, is the characteristic of faith.

I think that logic itself has changed very little. For instance. The logic behind simple mathematics can't possibly have changed. Because maths is a constant. Although very complex theories are proven and then dis-proven. The basics of maths has been and will always be the same. It's the language that transcends everything. And perhaps the best evidence of logic. I suppose it could be argued that different forms of logic have changed dramatically. But when you saw down to the bone. Logic itself cannot actually change.

I don't think we can come up with a new standard of knowledge. You simply can't know something until someone has hypothesised, explained and tested it. And as you point out nothing can ever be tested to it's fullest. By our very nature. Our slow acquisition of knowledge through trial and error is all we have. We can't just do away with it because it's ineffective. If there are better ways of obtaining knowledge. We don't know about them yet. And our mind's likely can't comprehend let alone decipher them.

We're just working with what we have.

Science is the 21st century religion in many respects. There are still people who make outlandish claims and just expect people to believe them obediently. I for one wouldn't argue with Hawkins on the universe. Even though all he can do is postulate. I'm not intelligent enough to argue with him. But we just have to be as vigilant as possible. Learn and understand what we can, so we're not merely running on an almost religious blind faith in science. The mere fact anyone with any understanding of science admits that everything is debatable is proof enough that we're heading in the right direction. Years ago people dealt in firm absolutes. Science is progressing in the right direction and about as fast as one could hope.

The logic of math hasn't changed? Logic of math has changed. It is only be overlooking the obvious jarring flaws in the logic that has kept it from changing. Kinda like building the tower of Pisa: you know it's crooked, but you keep building upon it because you think it's too expensive to abandon it now. They are a LOT of assumptions when it comes to solving even the simplest of math problems. Logic, again, is your creation--a creation which is obviously flawed.

You're working with what you have, you say, well I'll tell that what you have isn't very much and it isn't very good. You claim that just because science is intelligible, we're heading in the right way. That my friend is very cynical, I tell you; a train track laid with only a few degrees off will lead you very, very far from where you want to be when the continent ends.

There are just as many firm absolutes yesterday as they are today, but what ires me isn't our inability to achieve a perspective beyond man (hence the term, ubermensch), it is our unwillingness to achieve it. The larger society is, I know, fearful of the change and this is what makes society particularly despicable. I always thought Montesquieu was a bit harsh on mankind when he declared us creatures of fear, but I guess he wasn't.

You're confusing logic with understanding.

The principals of maths cannot change.

What you have is no better. In-fact it's worse. You have given up on humanity because we aren't gods basically. We can only achieve so much. There are limits to our capabilities. And shouting that what we're doing isn't good enough from the corner with your smug assertions is counterproductive. Unless you can propose how to initiate these changes you so desire. Then all you're doing is blowing smoke out of your ass. You are still so convinced that you're superior simply because you claim we're not good enough.

All I see in you is infinite pretence and hypocrisy.

We're heading the right way, because there is no designed path for us to follow. Where we end up is not decided. What I'm saying is that our progression within the last few hundred years has been so dramatic and fast, in comparison with any other time in history. That our attitude to discovery is most certainly correct.

You must be smoking crack. Unwillingness to achieve it? I suppose all the theoretical physicists trying to un-weave the mysteries of the universe and our geneticists cracking the code of our existence must just be happy with mediocrity aye?

Work on the higgs boson and string theory. They aren't taking any big risks with their proposals are they?

The only problem you have with humanity that I seem to be able to gather from your posts, is that we rely on what makes us human to achieve these. That is what we have. We can't just wish it away and achieve enlightenment. People have been trying that for thousands of years too. That seems to have hit a dead end somewhere.

If your problem with us actually is that we use the only talents and skills at our disposal to better ourselves. Then you're an idiot. Propose a better way right now or get off your high horse.

All you have done is criticise our methods whilst providing no alternatives. Simply observing that our methods are flawed isn't enough. propose alternatives or be silent. You're becoming boring.

Your confusing logic with truth, and truth with goodness. Again, the basics of principles haven't changed because as you stated, it's too costly to do so. And thus you have turned a blind eye to all the flaws and then claim the consistency to be a victory.

Humans aren't gods, that I will not dispute, but that doesn't mean it's a credit to the human race. If you think that the folly of man is his distinguishing character, then I will let you have your victory.

Whatever I'm smoking, seems much more agreeable to the folly that has caused your dreamless slumber. That is the precise problem with "theoretical" physics, it is theoretical. Despite what the proponents of string theory and even of black holes will tell you, they are meta-physicist. They make discoveries only on paper and then present to the world in power point presentations and through Discovery's feature presentations. And why are these things metaphysical? Because we've build around ourselves a fortress of folly, lies, miscalculations and are bent upon "proving" things based on these obviously outdated standards.

So it comes it, doesn't it? "Propose a better way?" That you are right because you have found the wrong way. What an argument. I do, in fact, have a better way, it's just that you are too steep in folly that you won't be able to see it.

Let us first get rid of things like morality, justice, goodness, piety, and most importantly, truth. Then we shall get somewhere.

 

[thylasos]

Monogamy's right for me, it's not right for everyone. Fair enough.

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

I read your original post. I still disagree with it. Human biology isn't so diverse. chemically. Most of us are the same. Hormones play a large enough part in our love lives for me to generalise accurately. Normality isn't just a concept. Especially when you're talking about biological normality.

Logic isn't really something that suffers from the passage of time. It can strengthen. But it still follows the same basic pattern as it did thousands of years ago. And hubris aside. It is clearly heading in the right direction. The last few hundred years have been so important scientifically. With the secularisation of societies. Discovery has bloomed. Just because things we've found out will be expanded upon and re-written after we're dead doesn't mean we should act as if we're not correct now. And our current definitions of fairness and truth are all we can act upon. Until someone re-writes them to be more accurate.

And the conclusion from my last post isn?t something I've just arrived at. I've always know the fragility of understanding. I just choose not to let that hinder my though process. We can't imagine the changes the new few hundred years will bring to science. We make do with what we currently understand.

I respectfully disagree. Especially with the logic part.

Logic isn't a separate entity. It's a fragment of human understanding--his fragile spirit and reasoning.

I see what you are saying with us acting upon our available knowledge, now. But all I'm saying is that we need to break this cycle, and come with new standards of knowledge. It may be a futile effort, because as Nietzsche said, "truth is the folly without which certain species can't survive." But that, to me, is no deterrent.

Also, if it may seem that I'm denying the usefulness of science, I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that our faith in it seems unfounded, but that I guess, is the characteristic of faith.

I think that logic itself has changed very little. For instance. The logic behind simple mathematics can't possibly have changed. Because maths is a constant. Although very complex theories are proven and then dis-proven. The basics of maths has been and will always be the same. It's the language that transcends everything. And perhaps the best evidence of logic. I suppose it could be argued that different forms of logic have changed dramatically. But when you saw down to the bone. Logic itself cannot actually change.

I don't think we can come up with a new standard of knowledge. You simply can't know something until someone has hypothesised, explained and tested it. And as you point out nothing can ever be tested to it's fullest. By our very nature. Our slow acquisition of knowledge through trial and error is all we have. We can't just do away with it because it's ineffective. If there are better ways of obtaining knowledge. We don't know about them yet. And our mind's likely can't comprehend let alone decipher them.

We're just working with what we have.

Science is the 21st century religion in many respects. There are still people who make outlandish claims and just expect people to believe them obediently. I for one wouldn't argue with Hawkins on the universe. Even though all he can do is postulate. I'm not intelligent enough to argue with him. But we just have to be as vigilant as possible. Learn and understand what we can, so we're not merely running on an almost religious blind faith in science. The mere fact anyone with any understanding of science admits that everything is debatable is proof enough that we're heading in the right direction. Years ago people dealt in firm absolutes. Science is progressing in the right direction and about as fast as one could hope.

The logic of math hasn't changed? Logic of math has changed. It is only be overlooking the obvious jarring flaws in the logic that has kept it from changing. Kinda like building the tower of Pisa: you know it's crooked, but you keep building upon it because you think it's too expensive to abandon it now. They are a LOT of assumptions when it comes to solving even the simplest of math problems. Logic, again, is your creation--a creation which is obviously flawed.

You're working with what you have, you say, well I'll tell that what you have isn't very much and it isn't very good. You claim that just because science is intelligible, we're heading in the right way. That my friend is very cynical, I tell you; a train track laid with only a few degrees off will lead you very, very far from where you want to be when the continent ends.

There are just as many firm absolutes yesterday as they are today, but what ires me isn't our inability to achieve a perspective beyond man (hence the term, ubermensch), it is our unwillingness to achieve it. The larger society is, I know, fearful of the change and this is what makes society particularly despicable. I always thought Montesquieu was a bit harsh on mankind when he declared us creatures of fear, but I guess he wasn't.

You're confusing logic with understanding.

The principals of maths cannot change.

What you have is no better. In-fact it's worse. You have given up on humanity because we aren't gods basically. We can only achieve so much. There are limits to our capabilities. And shouting that what we're doing isn't good enough from the corner with your smug assertions is counterproductive. Unless you can propose how to initiate these changes you so desire. Then all you're doing is blowing smoke out of your ass. You are still so convinced that you're superior simply because you claim we're not good enough.

All I see in you is infinite pretence and hypocrisy.

We're heading the right way, because there is no designed path for us to follow. Where we end up is not decided. What I'm saying is that our progression within the last few hundred years has been so dramatic and fast, in comparison with any other time in history. That our attitude to discovery is most certainly correct.

You must be smoking crack. Unwillingness to achieve it? I suppose all the theoretical physicists trying to un-weave the mysteries of the universe and our geneticists cracking the code of our existence must just be happy with mediocrity aye?

Work on the higgs boson and string theory. They aren't taking any big risks with their proposals are they?

The only problem you have with humanity that I seem to be able to gather from your posts, is that we rely on what makes us human to achieve these. That is what we have. We can't just wish it away and achieve enlightenment. People have been trying that for thousands of years too. That seems to have hit a dead end somewhere.

If your problem with us actually is that we use the only talents and skills at our disposal to better ourselves. Then you're an idiot. Propose a better way right now or get off your high horse.

All you have done is criticise our methods whilst providing no alternatives. Simply observing that our methods are flawed isn't enough. propose alternatives or be silent. You're becoming boring.

Your confusing logic with truth, and truth with goodness. Again, the basics of principles haven't changed because as you stated, it's too costly to do so. And thus you have turned a blind eye to all the flaws and then claim the consistency to be a victory.

Humans aren't gods, that I will not dispute, but that doesn't mean it's a credit to the human race. If you think that the folly of man is his distinguishing character, then I will let you have your victory.

Whatever I'm smoking, seems much more agreeable to the folly that has caused your dreamless slumber. That is the precise problem with "theoretical" physics, it is theoretical. Despite what the proponents of string theory and even of black holes will tell you, they are meta-physicist. They make discoveries only on paper and then present to the world in power point presentations and through Discovery's feature presentations. And why are these things metaphysical? Because we've build around ourselves a fortress of folly, lies, miscalculations and are bent upon "proving" things based on these obviously outdated standards.

So it comes it, doesn't it? "Propose a better way?" That you are right because you have found the wrong way. What an argument. I do, in fact, have a better way, it's just that you are too steep in folly that you won't be able to see it.

Let us first get rid of things like morality, justice, goodness, piety, and most importantly, truth. Then we shall get somewhere.

And with that last comment. I bid you farewell.

It's glaringly obvious that you don't have anything of merit to say.

All you are doing is pointing out the obvious then running around with a sticker on your head saying WINNER!

And I don't buy the, 'I has a plan, but u wun gets it.' ole' chestnut.

Either bring something worthy to this discussion or don't reply. All you have done for the entirety of this fiasco is claim that your eyes are so open and that you're so much more enlightened than everyone else. But you haven't actually told us why. Beyond all humans being in some metaphorical sleep. Presumably because they choose to follow progression. Over nihilistic musing on how humanity knows nothing so we must transcend humanity.

Bring proof that your 'we know nothing completely, so we know nothing at all' theory would actually spark some sort of revolutionary leap in understanding. Then I'll bow down and praise you. Until then. I think I'm going to keep following reason and logic. It seems to have done pretty well getting us this far.

If only wars were won so easily: it's obvious that you haven't the military strategy nor the logistical efficiency to back this war, and thus we claim victory. If so, then I can copy paste a hundred such phrases and claim victory--if there is any to be achieved.

If only debates were so settled in the Greek pantheon, then Demosthenes wouldn't have goaded Athens into war with Philip of Macedonia: "Aeschines, ain't buyin' none of you kool aid, go tell Philip than he can sod off." It would simply quiet a few things in the world, wouldn't it?

The proof is there, you only have to accept. It is so with all faculties of the mind; reality is what you accept it to be. If you want something more articulate, though, I'd suggest your read on David Hume and Kant. Although Kant disagrees with Hume, you will probably find the answer to the epistemological question that you just asked of me: bring me proof.

I'm dismayed by the visceral tone of your farewell, though.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

*Epic snip*

First off I would like to welcome you to the escapist.

You make many good points, and so far, I agree. Although I'm reluctant to fully agree, I need to let yours and other's thoughts kind of sit in my head for a while so I can sort it all out. For some reason, I'm sort of at a loss of words at what I can add to the discussion, I might add something later.

 

[ace_of_something]

It feels perfect. Havde you been watching that sister wives show? They get pretty jealous too.

 

[Ickorus]

I believe in monogamy because it feels like the right thing to me, im a loyal person and I feel I would get more satisfaction out of making a single person happy and having that person stay with me for a lifetime than going about shagging anything that moves until im 50 years old and then retiring to a life of loneliness.

It's really depressing to see some of the responses people have made about us monogamous people only giving the politically correct answer. Yes, we get it, you want to be edgy, fuck off.

 

[Hollock]

Did you know that you can usually tell if an animal will be monogimus or polygimus based on the size of their balls? Really, Chimps have big balls and always fuck around, Gorillas have small balls and almost never fuck around. We're in the middle (that's right we're smaller than chimps down there[in the junk]) so, really some people are meant to have one partner, but a lot of people aren't. If polygamy was legal I probably wouldn't do it, but I have no problem with it whatsoever.

 

[loc978]

I see nothin' wrong with it, and I'm currently in a monogamous relationship... but only because she's a tad jealous. If/when she leaves me, my stance on monogamy will be a resounding "meh".
If that's your thing, I don't mind... but it's not my thing. I like variety.

 

[VanityGirl]

Here's my take on how we as humans work...

When we're young and full of life, we can have multiple partners. Think of this as your "test drive" phase of life. Dating and even having sex with more than one person could be the way you find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Once you hit the level of maturity needed to have a family, then you will search for the "one". Once you find that one special person, you will stay with them for the rest of your life.


But, I don't think you can really put humans into a monogamous or polygamous category. We are far more complex than any other creature in the world.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Where's option for polyamorous relationships?

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

I read your original post. I still disagree with it. Human biology isn't so diverse. chemically. Most of us are the same. Hormones play a large enough part in our love lives for me to generalise accurately. Normality isn't just a concept. Especially when you're talking about biological normality.

Logic isn't really something that suffers from the passage of time. It can strengthen. But it still follows the same basic pattern as it did thousands of years ago. And hubris aside. It is clearly heading in the right direction. The last few hundred years have been so important scientifically. With the secularisation of societies. Discovery has bloomed. Just because things we've found out will be expanded upon and re-written after we're dead doesn't mean we should act as if we're not correct now. And our current definitions of fairness and truth are all we can act upon. Until someone re-writes them to be more accurate.

And the conclusion from my last post isn?t something I've just arrived at. I've always know the fragility of understanding. I just choose not to let that hinder my though process. We can't imagine the changes the new few hundred years will bring to science. We make do with what we currently understand.

I respectfully disagree. Especially with the logic part.

Logic isn't a separate entity. It's a fragment of human understanding--his fragile spirit and reasoning.

I see what you are saying with us acting upon our available knowledge, now. But all I'm saying is that we need to break this cycle, and come with new standards of knowledge. It may be a futile effort, because as Nietzsche said, "truth is the folly without which certain species can't survive." But that, to me, is no deterrent.

Also, if it may seem that I'm denying the usefulness of science, I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that our faith in it seems unfounded, but that I guess, is the characteristic of faith.

I think that logic itself has changed very little. For instance. The logic behind simple mathematics can't possibly have changed. Because maths is a constant. Although very complex theories are proven and then dis-proven. The basics of maths has been and will always be the same. It's the language that transcends everything. And perhaps the best evidence of logic. I suppose it could be argued that different forms of logic have changed dramatically. But when you saw down to the bone. Logic itself cannot actually change.

I don't think we can come up with a new standard of knowledge. You simply can't know something until someone has hypothesised, explained and tested it. And as you point out nothing can ever be tested to it's fullest. By our very nature. Our slow acquisition of knowledge through trial and error is all we have. We can't just do away with it because it's ineffective. If there are better ways of obtaining knowledge. We don't know about them yet. And our mind's likely can't comprehend let alone decipher them.

We're just working with what we have.

Science is the 21st century religion in many respects. There are still people who make outlandish claims and just expect people to believe them obediently. I for one wouldn't argue with Hawkins on the universe. Even though all he can do is postulate. I'm not intelligent enough to argue with him. But we just have to be as vigilant as possible. Learn and understand what we can, so we're not merely running on an almost religious blind faith in science. The mere fact anyone with any understanding of science admits that everything is debatable is proof enough that we're heading in the right direction. Years ago people dealt in firm absolutes. Science is progressing in the right direction and about as fast as one could hope.

The logic of math hasn't changed? Logic of math has changed. It is only be overlooking the obvious jarring flaws in the logic that has kept it from changing. Kinda like building the tower of Pisa: you know it's crooked, but you keep building upon it because you think it's too expensive to abandon it now. They are a LOT of assumptions when it comes to solving even the simplest of math problems. Logic, again, is your creation--a creation which is obviously flawed.

You're working with what you have, you say, well I'll tell that what you have isn't very much and it isn't very good. You claim that just because science is intelligible, we're heading in the right way. That my friend is very cynical, I tell you; a train track laid with only a few degrees off will lead you very, very far from where you want to be when the continent ends.

There are just as many firm absolutes yesterday as they are today, but what ires me isn't our inability to achieve a perspective beyond man (hence the term, ubermensch), it is our unwillingness to achieve it. The larger society is, I know, fearful of the change and this is what makes society particularly despicable. I always thought Montesquieu was a bit harsh on mankind when he declared us creatures of fear, but I guess he wasn't.

You're confusing logic with understanding.

The principals of maths cannot change.

What you have is no better. In-fact it's worse. You have given up on humanity because we aren't gods basically. We can only achieve so much. There are limits to our capabilities. And shouting that what we're doing isn't good enough from the corner with your smug assertions is counterproductive. Unless you can propose how to initiate these changes you so desire. Then all you're doing is blowing smoke out of your ass. You are still so convinced that you're superior simply because you claim we're not good enough.

All I see in you is infinite pretence and hypocrisy.

We're heading the right way, because there is no designed path for us to follow. Where we end up is not decided. What I'm saying is that our progression within the last few hundred years has been so dramatic and fast, in comparison with any other time in history. That our attitude to discovery is most certainly correct.

You must be smoking crack. Unwillingness to achieve it? I suppose all the theoretical physicists trying to un-weave the mysteries of the universe and our geneticists cracking the code of our existence must just be happy with mediocrity aye?

Work on the higgs boson and string theory. They aren't taking any big risks with their proposals are they?

The only problem you have with humanity that I seem to be able to gather from your posts, is that we rely on what makes us human to achieve these. That is what we have. We can't just wish it away and achieve enlightenment. People have been trying that for thousands of years too. That seems to have hit a dead end somewhere.

If your problem with us actually is that we use the only talents and skills at our disposal to better ourselves. Then you're an idiot. Propose a better way right now or get off your high horse.

All you have done is criticise our methods whilst providing no alternatives. Simply observing that our methods are flawed isn't enough. propose alternatives or be silent. You're becoming boring.

Your confusing logic with truth, and truth with goodness. Again, the basics of principles haven't changed because as you stated, it's too costly to do so. And thus you have turned a blind eye to all the flaws and then claim the consistency to be a victory.

Humans aren't gods, that I will not dispute, but that doesn't mean it's a credit to the human race. If you think that the folly of man is his distinguishing character, then I will let you have your victory.

Whatever I'm smoking, seems much more agreeable to the folly that has caused your dreamless slumber. That is the precise problem with "theoretical" physics, it is theoretical. Despite what the proponents of string theory and even of black holes will tell you, they are meta-physicist. They make discoveries only on paper and then present to the world in power point presentations and through Discovery's feature presentations. And why are these things metaphysical? Because we've build around ourselves a fortress of folly, lies, miscalculations and are bent upon "proving" things based on these obviously outdated standards.

So it comes it, doesn't it? "Propose a better way?" That you are right because you have found the wrong way. What an argument. I do, in fact, have a better way, it's just that you are too steep in folly that you won't be able to see it.

Let us first get rid of things like morality, justice, goodness, piety, and most importantly, truth. Then we shall get somewhere.

And with that last comment. I bid you farewell.

It's glaringly obvious that you don't have anything of merit to say.

All you are doing is pointing out the obvious then running around with a sticker on your head saying WINNER!

And I don't buy the, 'I has a plan, but u wun gets it.' ole' chestnut.

Either bring something worthy to this discussion or don't reply. All you have done for the entirety of this fiasco is claim that your eyes are so open and that you're so much more enlightened than everyone else. But you haven't actually told us why. Beyond all humans being in some metaphorical sleep. Presumably because they choose to follow progression. Over nihilistic musing on how humanity knows nothing so we must transcend humanity.

Bring proof that your 'we know nothing completely, so we know nothing at all' theory would actually spark some sort of revolutionary leap in understanding. Then I'll bow down and praise you. Until then. I think I'm going to keep following reason and logic. It seems to have done pretty well getting us this far.

If only wars were won so easily: it's obvious that you haven't the military strategy nor the logistical efficiency to back this war, and thus we claim victory. If so, then I can copy paste a hundred such phrases and claim victory--if there is any to be achieved.

If only debates were so settled in the Greek pantheon, then Demosthenes wouldn't have goaded Athens into war with Philip of Macedonia: "Aeschines, ain't buyin' none of you kool aid, go tell Philip than he can sod off." It would simply quiet a few things in the world, wouldn't it?

The proof is there, you only have to accept. It is so with all faculties of the mind; reality is what you accept it to be. If you want something more articulate, though, I'd suggest your read on David Hume and Kant. Although Kant disagrees with Hume, you will probably find the answer to the epistemological question that you just asked of me: bring me proof.

I'm dismayed by the visceral tone of your farewell, though.

Here's a retake of the farewell then.

As has been mentioned numerous times. You are neither poignant nor open minded. You're simply afraid to settle on your own beliefs. So instead, choose to mock people for attempting to discover some shadow of truth. People only theorise because at this moment in time, that's all we can do. 'Saying this isn't good enough' and sulking get's us absolutely no where. And if everyone shared your lack of vigour. We'd still be living in caves.

Humanity will never know everything. And if you cannot accept anything we find as we discover it. Then all that is left for you is to jeer in the corner. Insisting that no one can be correct so it's all pointless.

We can harness something and use it without fully understanding it. And then no doubt the trials we undergo whilst pioneering it will help future generations to eventually understand it.

Trial and error is thee one true progress.

You are truly one of the most nihilistic people I've met. Apathy towards discovery is not intelligence. It's the lack of it.

And so. With that. I say 'bye bye'. For likely the final time. Unless you bring something very interesting to this pointless discussion. Instead of ridiculous metaphorical diatribes about my lack of military prowess.

And what makes you think that there is virtue in sharing everything humanity? You're concerned with society, I'm not. For you and your undertakings, there is only error, repeated day after day, generation after generation, and in the end of your failures, you will stand those who disagreed on trial: it was them, those who discouraged that caused our failure--their lack of vigour!

The spirit is so dead the "discoverers" that they stumble around in the dark, following their poorly laid map, and the hapless soul of discovers something new is heaped with praises and laurels for his intelligence. Just remember, though, in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed fool reigns supreme.

I bid you farewell, too, with this. Only I mean it.

 

[BrassButtons]

I had an interesting idea presented to me. Why not have multiple partners to satisfy many different needs?

I actually know a few people who do this, usually with one significant other and then one or two play partners. It seems to work well for them, though I imagine it would ruin some relationships (particularly if the people involved don't communicate with each other).