bluemason3 said:Who cares? All that loud-mouthed rambling, inventing problems that don't exist, pitting abstract concepts against actual facts, and other philosophical nonsense just to stroke one's own ego—it's all, quite frankly, completely irrelevant.
The fact is, that’s how primitive societies functioned. It isn't like that today. You’re going to have to perform some serious pseudo-intellectual gymnastics if you want to resolve the internal conflict between actual facts and your own biases. 😍
As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to religious apologetics. 😳
This Williams guy is a total clown. Regarding what’s quoted here, I want to make one thing clear: I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsense written by certain philosophers or theologians—people like Steven Pinker, for instance. I'm just not that kind of reader. It starts with a flawed premise—that because mega-violence is "natural," any attempt to reduce it must be "unnatural." That’s just a logical fallacy. It also shows a total misunderance of nature and evolution. Honestly, it's just someone retreating into conceptual abstractions and philosophical fantasies typical of a regressive mind. 🧐 😛
Humans aren't exactly simple creatures. We’re driven by a messy mix of impulses, and depending on what’s necessary for survival or passing on genes at any given moment, certain traits take the lead while others get pushed to the background. That high level of adaptability is exactly why our species has managed to spread across the entire globe and thrive in just about any environment imaginable. It doesn't even take evolutionary timescales to see this play out; it happens in real-time. Even a minor shift in economic stability or social security can immediately alter everything—from the types of men women find attractive to political leanings and the general dynamics of how we interact with one another.
Organized communities have always outperformed tribal ones. It’s simple math: staying organized requires suppressing certain impulses while amplifying others, which is exactly why they end up winning. I don't see any "transcendence" in the whole process—honestly, it's a pretty silly term. Of course, this balance is never perfect, which is why we still need a functional legal and judicial system to keep things in check.
It’s like the whole deal with junk food. Evolutionarily speaking, we’re hardwired to crave high-calorie meals because, for most of human history, food was scarce. Back then, grabbing every calorie you could get was a survival tactic; nobody was losing sleep over cholesterol levels. It's just as natural to be lazy and conserve those precious calories whenever possible. But the world has changed. Today, the environment is different, so we have to be intentional about monitoring our diet and basically inventing artificial ways to stay active. Some people are better at navigating this and thrive, while others struggle. That's just how it goes. So, what does "transcendence" actually look like here? It’s easy to say we should want more calories, but it’s equally natural to want to hoard food and ensure maximum food security. You just have to learn to navigate the tug-of-war between these conflicting biological drives. Good luck out there.
It doesn't mean we’ve transcended anything. It just means we:
- spotted certain advantages to larger communities and expanded specific tendencies (uniting and conforming) to broader groups. This happened through gradual, concentric circles via the evolution of trade and communication; we didn't just leap from tribes straight into globalization.
- reached a higher level of existential security, which naturally lowered the desperate need to huddle together for survival (that drive still fluctuates today depending on how secure we feel)
- developed more complex social structures filled with various subcultural identities we can latch onto, essentially projecting our old tribal needs onto them.
- decided to suppress impulses that don't fit this kind of advancement (using ideological control—once religious, now "human rights"-based, alongside the growth of state bureaucracy and civil law)
Also, nothing was actually "erased." The circle of "us" simply expanded. Our tribe wasn't just a literal group of relatives anymore; it scaled up using new tools for control and homogenization, like religion, race, or the nation-state. It’s only with globalization that we felt the need to invent concepts like universal human rights and equality. That's the phase we're in now.
Mind you, none of this is a clean break. There are layers of trends, conflicts, and friction everywhere. People form "tribes" based on all sorts of different criteria within much larger frameworks. Some lean heavily into an in-group mentality, others less so. It all depends heavily on social and economic security, and how much people actually trust the government and such. Honestly, a truly global tribe would probably require an alien invasion to exist, since those kinds of bonds usually only form when facing an "other."
Spare me the grand philosophy, transcendence, and other nonsense. It’s just over-conceptualizing a blurry gray mass by using high verbal intelligence to throw abstractions around while lacking any mathematical grounding or actual facts.
It’s just one idiot talking to another, man. If they weren't busy with this, they’d probably be doing something useful and concrete. The most successful among these pseudo-intellectuals succeed by playing minor roles or acting as sidekicks to real science—if they aren't actively trying to throw a wrench in something they can't even comprehend. They borrow and steal from actual experts, then twist things with their own brand of stupidity to cater to a niche audience. 😳 But hey, that’s evolutionarily explained: even a useless beta musician without any real advantages has to find a way to land a date, and there’s always some high school girl charmed by messy philosophical posturing and empty verbal gymnastics. It’s basically just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader or a guru. 🕺
The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but I'll be polite and won't bother explaining why. 😁
First off, that isn't actually a fact. Second, this whole idea of performing pseudo-intellectual acrobatics—the notion that you can simply step outside of society and "observe" it as if you aren't inherently part of its fabric—is pure delusion. It’s as if this person somehow stumbled, quite by accident and without any preconceived notions, into some remote tribe on the other side of the country just to "describe the people" and was suddenly struck by the sheer novelty of the facts they found. You seem to have conveniently omitted the "fact" of the observer themselves. And let’s be honest, he brought his own biases along like a loaded shotgun. I mean, we have so many wars, massacres, and tribalistic conflicts happening right here and now that we really need an "anthropologist" to come along and explain to us that, yes, other people are also fighting, too. You are completely ignoring the underlying intention of this "describer"—these tepid, lukewarm facts are nothing more than a mask for his own perspective.
As far as I’m concerned, the whole thing really just boils down to religious apologetics at its core. 😳
Even though Williams was an atheist.
Honestly, this Williams fellow seems to be nothing more than a complete and utter fool. Regarding what’s been cited here—I should probably clarify that I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsensical ramblings of various self-proclaimed philosophers or theologians, nor am I someone who keeps up with the likes of Steven Pinker. I simply have no interest in consuming that kind of fluff. It all kicks off from this fundamentally flawed starting point—this idea that certain things are somehow "unnatural." It’s a slippery slope of logic: they argue that if mega-violence is considered a natural part of the human condition, then any concerted effort to reduce it must, by extension, be an affront to nature itself.
Where exactly did he say that?
It’s the same old story, really—once again, within this tiny little fragment of an argument, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a logical fallacy. It all stems from a fundamental, deep-seated misunderstanding of nature and the mechanics of evolution itself. Instead of grappling with reality, there's this constant, wearying retreat into these hollow conceptual abstractions and flights of fancy, typical of a philosophical mind that has become quite frankly degenerate and regressive in its outlook. 🧐 😛
So, what you're doing here is essentially accusing someone of performing these elaborate conceptual acrobatics just to manufacture a position that they never actually voiced—and, frankly, one they would never even consider holding.
People aren't nearly as simple as we like to pretend they are. We are driven by a messy web of competing impulses, and depending on what’s most vital for survival or passing on our genetic legacy at any given moment, certain drives take the driver's seat while others are pushed firmly into the backseat. It’s this incredible capacity for adaptation that defines the human species; it's precisely why we’ve managed to spread ourselves across every corner of the globe, thriving in environments that would crush almost anything else. And this isn't just some slow-motion drama playing out over millions of years through evolutionary epochs—it happens in real-time, right under our noses. You see it when the landscape shifts: even a slight tremor in economic stability or a sudden dip in social security can instantly recalibrate everything. Suddenly, you notice shifts in the types of men women find attractive, or subtle pivots in the political spectrum and the very fabric of how we interact with one another. Everything is interconnected, reacting to the pressures of the moment.
"Humans aren't such complex creatures," you claim, and then immediately pivot to describing the micro-economics of cigarette trading in a high school courtyard. "Humans aren't such complex creatures," you say, before delivering the most vulgar, reductive, and utterly banal concept imaginable—evolutionary psychology.
Organized communities have simply proven more effective than tribal ones, which necessitates a higher degree of impulse control and the suppression of certain drives in favor of others; that’s just how history unfolded. I don't see any "transcendence" in any of this—honestly, it's a rather silly term. Of course, it's never perfect, which is why we still require the oversight of a repressive legal system.
"Impulse control." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
"The male." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
Well, Sigmund Freud did speak about the role of "impulse control," but you seem to be interpreting that through a strictly Victorian lens. In the modern era, people are essentially paralyzed by their own inertia, yet here you are lecturing us on the luxury of "controlling one's impulses."
Furthermore, nothing is being "erased"; rather, the circle of "us-ness" is simply expanding.
And now we're bringing in Peter Singer. (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
It isn't that our tribe was just a literal tribe; it evolved through new instruments of control and homogenization, such as religion, race, the nation-state, and other mechanisms. It is only with globalization that the need for universal human rights and equality emerged, and that is the phase we find ourselves in now.
We aren't.
In reality, none of this is a simple erasure; instead, there are multi-layered tendencies, conflicts, and micro-conflicts at play. People coalesce into "tribes" based on various foundations within broader frameworks; some exhibit a stronger in-group mentality than others, all heavily dependent on levels of social, economic, and general security, as well as the degree of trust in government institutions and so on. To truly form a global tribe, we'd probably need an alien invasion, since such unity is best forged against the backdrop of an "other."
Someone who prefers the Steven Pinker version of humanity over Thomas Mann (or Bernard Williams, for that matter) talking about "multi-layered tendencies" and a "global tribe."
Spare me the grand philosophies, the talk of transcendence, and all that nonsense—it's just a way for a murky gray mass of people with inflated verbal intelligence to swirl around abstractions while lacking any actual mathematical rigor or grasp of the facts.
Williams actually noted that Pinker introduces a sort of psychology of transcendence. And you, quite clearly, are a disciple of those idiotic movements.
What on earth does a Lebesgue integral have to do with the "expansion of the circle of us-ness"? Honestly, if someone from my math department thinks they have better insights into "social movements" than anyone else, they are truly delusional. Have you even seen Sam Peckinpah's *Straw Dogs*, the one about the mathematician?
Look, buddy, it’s just one idiot talking to another; if they actually had anything worthwhile to contribute, they’d be occupied with something far more substantive and concrete. The most successful thing about these simpletons today is how they manage to stay small-time, acting as mere sidekicks to serious science—if they aren't outright trying to wedge a spoke into a wheel of a machine they can't even begin to comprehend. They borrow from it, they steal from it, and then they try to spin their own brand of nonsense to cater to their little niche audience 😳 Honestly, though, there's an evolutionary explanation for all this—even a useless beta male without any real comparative advantages has to find a way to land a date, and he always finds some wide-eyed coed charmed by a messy, pseudo-philosophical disarray and empty verbal posturing. It’s essentially just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader, a guru, or a New Age charlatan 🕺
"Serious science"? Since you clearly consider yourself such an expert on facts, do you have an explanation for this compulsive need to constantly praise STEM and "serious science"? Especially when we're already dealing with the fact that you can't even objectively observe yourself. And you'd "just describe" things? I suppose that must be some sort of "impulse" you haven't quite learned to master yet.
Alpha and beta males. ("It's not that simple")
He just wants chicks. ("It's not that simple")
Have you ever considered that modeling everything after the animal kingdom is just a symptom of our specific era? Namely, the animalistic era:
The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but fine, I'll be polite and won't comment on why 😁
No, the rest of the post is perfectly coherent, and there’s actually an evolutionary reason why you won't touch it. It’s because you're a coward who doesn't want to rock the boat. You know how the informant system worked in those old communist states, where faceless bureaucrats would just look the other way regarding certain phenomena? "You must have imagined it all." (We'll just frame that as urban entertainment, shall we?)
Now, some psychologists do study the sources of illusions, which is a somewhat noble pursuit. But when someone refuses to even "look" at certain things, you know you're dealing with something vital. Isn't that right, in the interest of "politeness" for the gentleman bluemason3?
Is it coherent to say that Harvey Weinstein was a serial rapist, given that it was only recently exposed? Before that, was it all just "incoherent gossip"? And that happened in "developed" America. So how much worse must it be here? But no, bluemason3 is busy imitating Robert Copal... Look, Copal knows how to project an aura of scientific authority, but you almost seem to believe your own rhetoric. You're like that "little guy" being bewitched by some "beta male." Besides, what purpose do all those "business schools" or "economics departments" serve otherwise?
