Posts by swiftcobra15

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

😕 😕 😕

What does philosophy actually have to do with intellectual growth?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

Social status certainly stems from the division of labor, but is that something we truly need?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

Let's assume for a moment that those "gifted teachers" (are there even 5% of them?) earned their way to the top through merit.
The rest likely seized power through force, deception, or some messy combination of both.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

To be polite, I'll just say you have a rather morbid sense of humor. 👎

mistyfox812 said:Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
But wait, did those very first human groups have hierarchical vibes too? I'm no expert on anthropology or anything, but it feels like even back then, there would've been a clear distinction between the shaman and the warrior, the family man and the smart one, the brave one and the fast one... And those traits would naturally carve out someone's place in the group (creating a hierarchy, basically, depending on what the tribe needed at the time).
There was certainly a division of labor and a "natural" social order, which really meant true equality.

Everyone contributed to the group based on their specific talents and capacities,
so while individual differences were obvious, nobody held privilege over anyone else.
The core issue is that social stratification—true hierarchy—often prevents many personal virtues
from ever surfacing because they are stifled by societal oppression.

Only genuine social equality allows an individual's "natural" qualities to truly shine.

Back then, the concept of a "family man" wouldn't have even made sense, because the family and the community were one and the same.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Is a non-coercive civilization even feasible? And if it were, how would it differ from what we have today?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Even today, direct communication is nearly impossible even within the smallest "political communities,"
but perhaps we could develop new ways or tools to facilitate that kind of connection.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

The only people who truly crave power over others are those who lack any self-control.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.

Leaders are always standing by, ready to "protect" us from enemies—even when we don't actually have
any enemies other than the leaders themselves, who conveniently manufacture "threats" whenever they need to.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

It all comes down to the fact that culture is something we build ourselves, one person at a time.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

They don't have anything! All that remains is the emotional lives of "higher" animals.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Could you please clarify? I honestly can't wrap my head around it—what is it that truly sets us apart from the animals?
Mathematics is, naturally, an absolute necessity. It’s just so incredibly human. Mathematics is truly the backbone of all the natural sciences. I’ve always felt that without its precision, we'd be lost in guesswork.
It isn’t about "copying" her; rather, she serves as the essential framework through which the natural sciences interpret the world around us.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
True nature hasn't existed since the moment we introduced culture into the equation. In my view, what we call "nature" is really just a reflection of human perception.
It’s all about how we shape our environment—it's essentially a modified version of nature, rather than some primal tribal existence. No. They’ve survived... virtually unchanged for millennia.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

Civilization serves as the material, inseparable component of culture.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

Animals don't have rituals. Humans don't act on pure instinct.

Spider-Man doesn't build a house or live in a web, yet humans weave nets for hunting much like he would.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

If we categorized culinary arts under fine arts, this comparison might actually hold water. But humans don't eat art. Humans are artists, whereas an animal
simply cannot be. Humans create according to the laws of beauty, while animals do not.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Nature is human nature. People build/create themselves through culture.

A natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't live in the wild; we can only live in a community—within culture.

In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Human activity is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature just reproduces itself (sustainably). Humans produce/create things, often jeopardizing their own survival.

[/B][/INDENT]

???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...
???

So, what exactly makes human culture "unnatural"?

Animals have their own societies; they have complex relationships and emotions... they grieve, they celebrate, they play, they get angry, they get annoyed, they hold grudges, they comfort us when we're feeling down...
The only thing that sets us apart is reason—but isn't reason also natural? Can't we see math reflected all across the natural world? (I know that’s a sore spot for you, but seriously...) Is reason some kind of system error? 😁
Anyway, being serious here... if you make a mistake in a system, the fix is usually to terminate whatever caused the error. These pessimistic complaints about "human depravity" and the downfall of the world have been around since Ancient Greece (probably even earlier, but I'm fairly certain about that), and yet, after thousands of years, the prophecy hasn't actually come true.

When it comes to culture, it doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with nature—because culture, by its very definition, is just the set of symbols used by any society, including tribal ones that lived in harmony with nature for millennia without changing...
Civilization is a different story—that's inherently tied to hierarchy and refers to a society focused on development, with an emphasis on intellect. If progress is the goal, then destruction follows naturally as a companion to creation.

Even within humans, there is no objective good or evil—we are simply free to think that it exists—we can interpret our actions that way, or we don't have to.
But going back to animals: they have rituals too, many of them build things, and plenty use tools. Instinct? Well... just like a Spider-Man won't go out and weave a web to live in, a human won't spin a web either. Of course, our range of choices and skills is much broader, thanks to our intellect. Reason is that specific part of the mind—the only part of the mind—that can actually question itself: ask about its own quality.
We define quality based on the conflict (or harmony) between desire and current reality... which means the breadth of choice is also what allows for a wider perception of time, and therefore imaginary connections between future, present, and past. Complex thoughts lead to complex feelings... and those feelings demand more complex expressions. That's how human creations are born. And again: creation implies destruction.
For a painter to finish a canvas, they first have to 'break down' plants: to make the fabric, the frame, and the pigments... grinding up minerals for color... how is that any different from an animal killing prey to eat? Even the predator produces waste that feeds something else, keeping the cycle going. Humans feed on art—they need it, otherwise, they wouldn't constantly be making it. But we aren't the only ones with an eye for aesthetics—there is no "ugly" in nature; everything is in balance, and everything functions. We're just free to think that maybe it isn't. The proof, however, is that this concept of "ugliness" exists, and it's been around a long time...we only consider something ugly when we don't understand it or refuse to find its purpose! It's just anything that feels "out of sync" with our understanding.

But even this human perspective is natural: having a wide range of choices means having a wider possibility of making mistakes. In the moment, a mistake might look horrific, but does it really disrupt the balance of the universe? That's the contradiction I'm talking about:
- So, if you say yes, then you’re basically arguing that humans are "unnatural"—because we’re actively pushing back against the grain—putting us on the level of some terrifying religious deity who has the power to tear apart the world!
- But if the answer is no, then the conclusion is that we, along with our logic and all our messy mistakes, are just a natural part of the ecosystem, tucked away inside the grand, overarching harmony of the universe.

The thing is, it can’t be both. You can't be partially natural and partially not, any more than life can be partially meaningful or partially meaningless—it’s not like you can have just a little bit of sense. The universe is incredibly complex, and honestly, our intellect is nowhere near advanced enough to grasp how every single element is interconnected... there’s no way such massive complexity could exist if "meaning"—which is really just finding that perfect, underlying rhythm—was something that flickered in and out of existence.

I don't think the issue is that we possess reason; it's more that we use it so inconsistently. (And I guess it’s perfectly natural that we can choose to be that flaky—it's our own free will, after all.) We flip-flop on what "meaning" is based entirely on our mood, and then we try to build entire philosophies out of those whims! Instead of actually putting that little bit of reasoning we do have to work, we could probably see that the first option would be pretty obvious...

Philosophies emerge from the mind, and raw reason alone never quite reaches the level of true philosophy.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Humans exploit everything: other people, different species, the entire planet...
We’re inherently selfish, and even when we try to be selfless, it’s usually just a thinly veiled way to feed our own egos.
Humanity is the root cause of ecological imbalance; we're the only species actively fighting against the very system we belong to...

And then you have the complete opposite:
"Man is a noble creature, the measure of all things," and so on and so forth.

I’ve been feeling a bit lost lately navigating the constant contradictions in how we judge our own species. I see so many posts on this forum where the tone is heavy with disappointment and condemnation, even when people are trying their hardest to sound objective... and I can't help but wonder why.

It feels like there are really only two ways to look at this:

1) Humans are simply part of nature—which means we aren't inherently "good" or "bad," we're just biological facts. Everything we do happens because the environment we inhabit allows us to do it, so the evolution of our species—including all those messy mistakes we make while learning—is still just evolution, not some kind of cosmic destruction.

2) Humans are not part of nature—we've broken away, warped ourselves, and now we're just a burden to ourselves and everyone else. Our society is unnatural, our thoughts are unnatural, our very feelings are unnatural...

Since the second option clearly doesn't hold water, isn't it a total rookie mistake for a thinker to claim that a human action is wrong *a priori*?
Human civilization is a natural phenomenon precisely because we are a product of nature. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for what we do—but responsibility can only lie with the individual, because the individual is the only one actually acting. Society, as an abstract concept, can't take the blame for the things that make us feel guilty; blaming "society" is often just a psychological trick to scrub our own consciences clean of actions we aren't proud of...

Conscience is also a natural phenomenon, just like accountability. A dog doesn't run from a crime scene—not because it's incapable of doing something "wrong," but because it doesn't view its actions through that lens. That doesn't make humans unnatural; it just makes us different... and honestly, animals do show a sense of conscience; it's almost funny, like watching a toddler who knows they did something they weren't supposed to and tries to hide so they won't get grounded... but we only really see animal consciousness when we use punishment to train them—which is a fundamentally flawed (and unfortunately common) way to link those two ideas together...
Every person, like every living thing, knows when they aren't doing the "right" thing—because that's when they are acting against what they actually want. A dog knows it shouldn't swipe a steak off the dinner table, but sometimes it does it anyway because it wants that steak—and we do the exact same thing, just in much more complex ways.

Our true nature hasn't been corrupted; it's just buried under layers of "civilized" behavior. We've adopted hundreds of social rules about what's allowed and what isn't, spent lifetimes inventing justifications for them, and ended up in a place where there's no room left for honest, natural desire.
The real irony is that these rules were born out of distrust toward our own natural impulses. It was a lack of faith in our own correct judgment that led us to outsource our decision-making to others, and eventually, to dump all responsibility onto an abstract entity: society.

Society isn't some freakish mutation; it's just the physical manifestation of the human idea of itself—as a being that isn't allowed to, doesn't know how to, and shouldn't... it's the natural expression of a natural mental capacity: the ability to doubt, even our own selves. And if we don't like it, it's only because we are all participants in that doubt.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

Shakespeare definitely saw it coming...

Humans don't possess a nature; instead, we possess a history. We are not a part of nature!

Nature is simply what humans have made of themselves. We build our own identity through culture.

Culture only emerges by consuming or destroying the natural world. Nothing about being human is truly "natural,"
but a human does still have a physical body. Some might even argue that a human is nothing but a body,
though most people are careful to avoid that specific phrasing. We feel like much more than just flesh and bone.

Some will credit us with having a "soul," but almost everyone agrees there is "something more" there.

A truly natural society doesn't exist. Humans can't survive in the wild; we can only live within a community—within culture.

In the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. Human existence, however, is fundamentally defined by those categories.
Nature simply reproduces itself sustainably. Humans, on the other hand, produce and create, often jeopardizing their own survival in the process.

Since a true "natural state" vanished long ago, we now just shed crocodile tears over its loss.
The small remnants of the (unspoiled) world that hadn't been claimed by us a century ago
have now been occupied—and largely devastated—so now we act very sophisticatedly when we talk about
"saving the environment."

Today, "nature" consists of nothing more than rare little oases scattered across a global technological wasteland.

Edward Flores4 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Check out this short lecture (about 25 minutes). I really think it serves as an excellent answer, a great supplement, or even a solid alternative to what you posted.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondB...watch/brin.php

The guy's name is David Brin, and here is a quote of his that hits the nail on the head:

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Check out this short lecture (about 25 minutes). I really think it serves as an excellent answer, a great supplement, or even a solid alternative to what you posted.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondB...watch/brin.php

The guy's name is David Brin, and here is a quote of his that hits the nail on the head:

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”
👍

That’s the heart of it: someone who is obsessed with controlling others clearly hasn't mastered themselves yet. 👎

Edward Flores4 said:

self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁
self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁
self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁

I stand corrected! 🙏

Human beings are inherently spiritual creatures who have a deep-seated need to connect with others and share their life experiences.
Unfortunately, religious institutions often act like parasites on that natural impulse. They exert control over their followers by dictating specific ways one must practice "spirituality," and they use various tactics—shifting from brute force in the past to clever manipulation today—to pocket wealth while preaching poverty in the name of God.

True, healthy connections in this realm require absolute freedom of association,
ensuring that individual differences are respected and that everyone has the right to be different from the crowd.

Spiritual gatherings and rituals should fundamentally be private matters, regardless of how many people attend, and they should always remain entirely voluntary.

Kyle Morris7 said:

Japan lost the war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation that essentially has more people trapped in cycles of debt than independent farmers,
tens of millions living in poverty or without homes,
millions of children lacking health insurance,
and some of the unhealthiest citizens on the planet.

If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
Japan lost a war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation with more people trapped in cycles of poverty than independent farmers,
tens of millions struggling with extreme hardship or homelessness,
millions of children lacking proper health insurance,
along with having one of the least healthy populations on the planet...

If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
Japan lost a war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation with more people trapped in cycles of poverty than independent farmers,
tens of millions struggling with extreme hardship or homelessness,
millions of children lacking proper health insurance,
along with having one of the least healthy populations on the planet...

If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
It's pretty clear you don't know much about Japan (and honestly, neither do your friends), so it might be worth doing a little homework.

You could even start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

And if you find Japan so repulsive, take a closer look at Germany.
She actually recovered and progressed faster than the Allied powers after World War II
and has far surpassed both France and the United Kingdom.

Kyle Morris7 said:1. Wars are always instigated by a small handful of leaders, while the vast majority of the public is against them.
Only when propaganda (lies) convinces them that they are under threat from an enemy,
does a larger portion of the population agree to the war and the sacrifices it demands.

2. Only a tiny minority profits from these wars, while a massive number of people suffer the consequences.

3. Your second point doesn't logically follow from your first (you're jumping to conclusions),
but it is true that rulers pay their own workers much better than those in subjugated lands.
Even so, "economic superpowers" (like the USA) still have tens of millions of homeless people
and other impoverished citizens, not to mention the wounded, PTSD, and other "gifts" of war.

In short: You haven't provided a single valid argument—just empty assertions based on prejudice. 👎

1. Wars are invariably driven by a tiny handful of elites, while the vast majority of the citizenry remains opposed to conflict.
Only once they are convinced through propaganda—through outright falsehoods—that they are under threat from some enemy,
does a significant portion of the population consent to war and the sacrifices it demands...
But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...
But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...
But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...

A perfect way to see this is by comparing the USA and Japan.

Japan lost the war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation that essentially has more people trapped in cycles of debt than independent farmers,
tens of millions living in poverty or without homes,
millions of children lacking health insurance,
and some of the unhealthiest citizens on the planet.

If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.

Kyle Morris7 said:In this particular instance, we're looking at the American military-industrial complex, where profits continued to climb steadily as long as the fighting persisted.

It goes without saying that no war provides any actual benefit to the citizens caught in the middle of it...
Ideologies, if one looks closely enough, often serve as little more than a convenient veneer for plunder, or rather, the enrichment of a few select groups...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...
But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...
But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

Those are just arbitrary claims with no actual foundation.

1. Wars are always instigated by a small handful of leaders, while the vast majority of the public is against them.
Only when propaganda (lies) convinces them that they are under threat from an enemy,
does a larger portion of the population agree to the war and the sacrifices it demands.

2. Only a tiny minority profits from these wars, while a massive number of people suffer the consequences.

3. Your second point doesn't logically follow from your first (you're jumping to conclusions),
but it is true that rulers pay their own workers much better than those in subjugated lands.
Even so, "economic superpowers" (like the USA) still have tens of millions of homeless people
and other impoverished citizens, not to mention the wounded, PTSD, and other "gifts" of war.

The rulers always gain, while the majority of the people only suffer the losses.

In short: You haven't provided a single valid argument—just empty assertions based on prejudice. 👎

Kyle Morris7 said:In this particular instance, we're looking at the American military-industrial complex, where profits continued to climb steadily as long as the fighting persisted.

It goes without saying that no war provides any actual benefit to the citizens caught in the middle of it...
Ideologies, if one looks closely enough, often serve as little more than a convenient veneer for plunder, or rather, the enrichment of a few select groups...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...
But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...
But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

If your argument is that the average American benefits from what is looted,
that might hold water if you consider the lives of all the killed and maimed (both physically and mentally)
Americans to be cheap. The people who orchestrate these wars aren't the ones on the front lines
(nor do they send their own sons to fight), yet they walk away with the lion's share of the spoils.

The reality is that the war caused far more devastation to the Iraqi people than to Americans.

No all nations involved in a conflict always end up losing.

Kyle Morris7 said:Quinn:

rustymaker5 As Kyle Morris7 says... So, I find myself wondering if we might be able to assume that not everyone is inherently inclined toward conflict... perhaps it isn't a universal truth, but rather something that only feels like a natural state to certain groups—those who, one might argue, possess a more aggressive disposition by nature...

At the very beginning of this discussion, we failed to establish a clear definition for what it actually means for a war to be "natural" to someone... which leaves us in a bit of a bind, really. Because without that foundation, we can only truly debate whether a conflict serves a purpose and who exactly stands to gain from it. It follows, then, that we must consider the possibility that entire nations might reap the benefits of warfare, rather than just a few select individuals at the top... Yet, you have maintained quite firmly throughout our exchange that no nation, as a collective entity, ever finds any benefit in war...

Quinn:

Do you honestly find that acceptable? The idea of one nation subjugating others just to seize their natural resources, or perhaps merely to secure a strategic foothold for even more conquests down the line... does that truly strike you as some sort of "natural law" regarding how nations behave? To my mind, it feels like nothing more than pure, nakedly selfish aggression, driven entirely by self-interest at the absolute expense of our shared humanity...

I find myself unable to accept this... It is truly difficult to reconcile. I believe we are in complete agreement on this point, though I must clarify that my intention was never to pass judgment on whether something is morally sound or righteous, but rather to simply outline the facts as they stand in reality...

But honestly, every war benefits someone—specifically, those who pull the strings.

In this instance, you look at the American defense industry: profits just kept climbing for as long as the fighting lasted.

It’s a given that no nation actually benefits from being caught in the crossfire.
Ideologies are usually just a convenient smokescreen for looting and lining the pockets of a select few.

Of course, modern conflicts aren't always about simple, direct theft.
The US didn't just target Iraq; they also secured massive new markets for their own domestic industries.

Humanity isn't an extension of nature, and nature doesn't care one bit about warfare.

I can't say for certain whether people are inherently good or evil,
but I firmly believe that being peaceful is our "natural" state—after all, the vast majority of us just want to live in peace.

Wars are always driven by those in power acting out of self-interest for their own people (or others).
They first have to convince the public—or at least the influential groups—that an enemy is threatening them.
Of course, this enemy is almost always a fabrication. We are constantly told we need to defend ourselves against some manufactured threat.
If nobody ever struck first, wars wouldn't exist. In that sense, "defense" is nothing more than a farce.

Take the USA, for instance; they spend most of their time "defending" themselves on the complete opposite side of the globe.
They possess such a massive arsenal of weaponry (supposedly for defense 😁) that if we redirected that immense wealth
(its actual value), we could solve nearly every economic issue on the planet.

Instead, they "protect" us: they protect a Vietnamese person from a Vietnamese person, or an Iraqi person from an Iraqi person, and so on.
This also ties into the issue of overpopulation in certain regions. Sometimes, when there is a surplus of labor,
a war or a local conflict is orchestrated simply to deal with that unwanted excess.

Millions of lives are lost just so profit margins can keep climbing exactly as they did before.