The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Joseph Murphy10 said:And what about proteins? Egg whites, yolks... scrambled eggs? Yum.

Griffith, nice one! You really poked a hole in this. All that fighting and blood spilled for freedom—which, let’s face it, most people can’t even handle once they actually get it. I’m currently digging through some essays by Ivan Illich—a brilliant guy, though he doesn't get nearly enough credit here in the States. He writes beautifully about this stuff. Ever read him? That bit about printing things out in those stinky, crowded cities sounds like it was pulled straight from his "Vernacular Values." 🙂

Sent from my Galaxy S10 via Reddit

Sent from my Galaxy S10 via Reddit

And what’s the alternative here? Less freedom?

Megan Gray32 said:From every conceivable angle, early humans possessed far more freedom than we do today. It strikes me that as our collective consciousness evolved, we actually achieved the exact opposite—the individual expanded their own autonomy by encroaching upon the liberty of others.

Furthermore, if freedom is truly regarded as a core ideal within any serious, rational intellectual circle, why on earth haven't we developed a practical system to support it? Why does everyone continue to cluster together in these suffocating, smog-filled cities—places where you can barely find enough oxygen to breathe—while mindlessly chanting about "liberty" like some sort of hollow mantra?

Real freedom was an urgent necessity back when actual slavery existed, because under those conditions, true mental development was impossible. Today, we have every opportunity to cultivate our minds, yet we still exist within a different kind of bondage—the endless grind of the 9-to-5, where our entire mental capacity is consumed by the trivial task of managing pennies.

What does "freedom" even mean to people living like that? To them, it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric and hollow ideals. They tie it to notions of rights and equality, which ultimately serve as a smokescreen for the same old story: providing the perfect cover for more organized, more efficient tyrants than ever before.

Anyone who thinks you can grow your own freedom at the expense of someone else's clearly doesn't have a clue what liberty actually means. Advancing our understanding of freedom goes hand-in-hand with understanding equality. It’s baked right into the first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."

ruggedraven36 said:And what’s the alternative here? Less freedom?

There isn't an alternative to freedom—period. Freedom is an intrinsic value. It's about escaping from freedom, which is exactly what Freud wrote about. Maybe it'd be a smart move to actually sit down and read what he had to say for once. Even Paul of Tarsus said "Christ set us free." I think you were the one who brought that up earlier, so you clearly get the context behind his claim. If I had to boil my thoughts down to two points, they'd be this: first, we can't stop trying to teach people how to be free; and second, we have to face the fact that most people will never truly know how to handle their own inherent right to liberty. Of course, that leaves us—the ones who actually see the situation for what it is. Our job in this mess is to ensure, within our own capacity, that freedom isn't weaponized by those in power to screw over the people who don't even realize the massive asset they're losing. We could also just sit on our hands. We could even side with the people stripping rights away. Everyone gets to make their choice. Me? I'm pathetic.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Reddit

jedrilicar@
I haven't actually spent much time digging through theoretical texts—honestly, almost none—aside from those first couple of years in college before I decided to walk away from philosophy and sociology. I have read a handful of novels, though, and Jean-Paul Sartre remains my absolute favorite because he manages to be perfectly lucid and genuinely engaging at the same time.

ruggedraven36 said:Anyone who thinks you can grow your own freedom at the expense of someone else's clearly doesn't have a clue what liberty actually means. Advancing our understanding of freedom goes hand-in-hand with understanding equality. It’s baked right into the first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."

I wasn't presenting that as my own personal opinion, but rather as a historical fact which I was attempting to explain through logic. That entire document wouldn't even have been necessary if the circumstances I described hadn't already existed.

At the end of the day, just because something is printed on a piece of paper and stamped by an official doesn't mean much—it’s a cold comfort, really. There are so many rights out there that if you actually sat down to list them all, you'd probably hit at least three hundred; yet, the ones that truly matter by their very nature tend to get overshadowed, and they can be violated quite easily without anyone even blinking.

Megan Gray32 said:jedrilicar@
I haven't actually spent much time digging through theoretical texts—honestly, almost none—aside from those first couple of years in college before I decided to walk away from philosophy and sociology. I have read a handful of novels, though, and Jean-Paul Sartre remains my absolute favorite because he manages to be perfectly lucid and genuinely engaging at the same time.

I wasn't presenting that as my own personal opinion, but rather as a historical fact which I was attempting to explain through logic. That entire document wouldn't even have been necessary if the circumstances I described hadn't already existed.

Not me either. Spent my education training for one thing and ended up doing something else entirely—life’s funny like that—but hey, it's never too late to start reading. Sartre was a solid writer, a sharp thinker, and a total jerk, but his take on existentialism offers zero hope. Still, glad you read him; he’s essential for the canon. Personally, I dig Camus way more than that whole French existentialist vibe. I respect Sartre as a thinker, but I don't like him. Existence isn't necessarily what Sartre claims it is, and life doesn't have to be this bleak, dark, hopeless mess. Dostoevsky articulates that much better. Sartre couldn't even fathom Dostoevsky's lived experience because he was always the darling of the intellectual elite—a complete hypocrite, kind of like how Hemingway was just a big shot playing at being deep. Dostoevsky finds a glimmer of light in every ounce of despair, and honestly, that's how it should be. That's what actual life teaches you. What you wrote about (in)freedom is spot on. Check out some Jordan Peterson, Murray, Eagleton, Illich, or Baudrillard. They break down reality in pretty fascinating ways.
Read *The Origins of Totalitarianism* by Hannah Arendt and draw some parallels to what people usually call "the system." Doesn't matter which one—political, tech, accounting, software, whatever. Just look at "the system" as a massive simulacrum designed to screw over the little guy through the lens of Arendt's focus on totalitarianism, and you'll see things for what they really are. That's what the common man lacked back then. He didn't have a "system." He broke the natural order to build his own. This is the fallout. We have to tear down the system if we want to survive. We need to restore the balance between the individual and whatever the ultimate authority happens to be, and then things will be fine.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Reddit

Megan Gray32 said:At the end of the day, just because something is printed on a piece of paper and stamped by an official doesn't mean much—it’s a cold comfort, really. There are so many rights out there that if you actually sat down to list them all, you'd probably hit at least three hundred; yet, the ones that truly matter by their very nature tend to get overshadowed, and they can be violated quite easily without anyone even blinking.

That first clause in the Declaration basically boils down the whole essence of liberty. That’s why I quoted it—not because we need some warm, fuzzy feeling to hold onto. You have to actually know what freedom is. You have to grasp the concept before we can even have a coherent conversation about it. Your whole "freedom at the expense of someone else's freedom" line doesn't hold water, because the premise is that "all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights." Sure, one person can try to stomp on another's rights, but in doing so, they're just undermining the very foundation of their own.

ruggedraven36 said:That first clause in the Declaration basically boils down the whole essence of liberty. That’s why I quoted it—not because we need some warm, fuzzy feeling to hold onto. You have to actually know what freedom is. You have to grasp the concept before we can even have a coherent conversation about it. Your whole "freedom at the expense of someone else's freedom" line doesn't hold water, because the premise is that "all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights." Sure, one person can try to stomp on another's rights, but in doing so, they're just undermining the very foundation of their own.

The only way to wrap your head around this is to step outside the usual materialistic, hierarchical mindset. You have to believe we are spiritual beings, all tied together by invisible threads.

Sandra Murphy33 said:The only way to wrap your head around this is to step outside the usual materialistic, hierarchical mindset. You have to believe we are spiritual beings, all tied together by invisible threads.

Nah. This makes perfect sense in any paradigm—inside or out. It’s just straight-up physics.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

Megan Gray32 said:From every conceivable angle, early humans possessed far more freedom than we do today. It strikes me that as our collective consciousness evolved, we actually achieved the exact opposite—the individual expanded their own autonomy by encroaching upon the liberty of others.

Furthermore, if freedom is truly regarded as a core ideal within any serious, rational intellectual circle, why on earth haven't we developed a practical system to support it? Why does everyone continue to cluster together in these suffocating, smog-filled cities—places where you can barely find enough oxygen to breathe—while mindlessly chanting about "liberty" like some sort of hollow mantra?

Real freedom was an urgent necessity back when actual slavery existed, because under those conditions, true mental development was impossible. Today, we have every opportunity to cultivate our minds, yet we still exist within a different kind of bondage—the endless grind of the 9-to-5, where our entire mental capacity is consumed by the trivial task of managing pennies.

What does "freedom" even mean to people living like that? To them, it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric and hollow ideals. They tie it to notions of rights and equality, which ultimately serve as a smokescreen for the same old story: providing the perfect cover for more organized, more efficient tyrants than ever before.

A person can be enslaved by their own instincts, the environment they live in, or by other people.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by "early man," but if you're referring to Homo erectus or our even older ancestors, they were arguably more slaves to instinct than Homo sapiens ever were. Then again, even a modern American isn't fully capable of mastering their own impulses.

Before technological progress took hold, humanity was at the mercy of nature. It dictated everything: how they lived, what they did, and when they died. If they couldn't find food, they simply didn't survive. They had very little leverage against the elements.

Even before formal slavery existed, people were subject to the whims of others or the dictates of their community. Tribal societies were governed by strict prohibitions and taboos; anyone who stepped out of line faced being killed or exiled, which was essentially a death sentence.
The social codes of those ancient societies were incredibly rigid, governing every single aspect of life from birth until death. There was precious little room for personal liberty back then.

Modern society certainly has its flaws and could improve immensely, but it is still an improvement over the structures that came before it. Overall, there is much more freedom available now.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Not me either. Spent my education training for one thing and ended up doing something else entirely—life’s funny like that—but hey, it's never too late to start reading. Sartre was a solid writer, a sharp thinker, and a total jerk, but his take on existentialism offers zero hope. Still, glad you read him; he’s essential for the canon. Personally, I dig Camus way more than that whole French existentialist vibe. I respect Sartre as a thinker, but I don't like him. Existence isn't necessarily what Sartre claims it is, and life doesn't have to be this bleak, dark, hopeless mess. Dostoevsky articulates that much better. Sartre couldn't even fathom Dostoevsky's lived experience because he was always the darling of the intellectual elite—a complete hypocrite, kind of like how Hemingway was just a big shot playing at being deep. Dostoevsky finds a glimmer of light in every ounce of despair, and honestly, that's how it should be. That's what actual life teaches you. What you wrote about (in)freedom is spot on. Check out some Jordan Peterson, Murray, Eagleton, Illich, or Baudrillard. They break down reality in pretty fascinating ways.
Read *The Origins of Totalitarianism* by Hannah Arendt and draw some parallels to what people usually call "the system." Doesn't matter which one—political, tech, accounting, software, whatever. Just look at "the system" as a massive simulacrum designed to screw over the little guy through the lens of Arendt's focus on totalitarianism, and you'll see things for what they really are. That's what the common man lacked back then. He didn't have a "system." He broke the natural order to build his own. This is the fallout. We have to tear down the system if we want to survive. We need to restore the balance between the individual and whatever the ultimate authority happens to be, and then things will be fine.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Reddit

I can't speak for all types of systems, but an accounting system is really just a way to document what is happening within a corporation. In other words, it tracks processes from raw material sourcing and manufacturing all the way through to the final sale.

The same fundamental accounting principles were utilized during the era of socialism and are used today under capitalism; the mechanics haven't changed. You could even apply them to the structures of feudalism, slavery, or even primitive communal societies. You could use them to map out the behavior of early humans, from the moment they crafted an arrow to when they traded that arrow for something else, like a seashell.

Megan Gray32 said:From every conceivable angle, early humans possessed far more freedom than we do today. It strikes me that as our collective consciousness evolved, we actually achieved the exact opposite—the individual expanded their own autonomy by encroaching upon the liberty of others.

Furthermore, if freedom is truly regarded as a core ideal within any serious, rational intellectual circle, why on earth haven't we developed a practical system to support it? Why does everyone continue to cluster together in these suffocating, smog-filled cities—places where you can barely find enough oxygen to breathe—while mindlessly chanting about "liberty" like some sort of hollow mantra?

Real freedom was an urgent necessity back when actual slavery existed, because under those conditions, true mental development was impossible. Today, we have every opportunity to cultivate our minds, yet we still exist within a different kind of bondage—the endless grind of the 9-to-5, where our entire mental capacity is consumed by the trivial task of managing pennies.

What does "freedom" even mean to people living like that? To them, it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric and hollow ideals. They tie it to notions of rights and equality, which ultimately serve as a smokescreen for the same old story: providing the perfect cover for more organized, more efficient tyrants than ever before.

We have never been free. All we did was become conscious enough to realize it, and now we're just trying to make our servitude a little more tolerable.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Nah. This makes perfect sense in any paradigm—inside or out. It’s just straight-up physics.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

How exactly?

I fail to see how that is logical or even remotely sensible within a paradigm where we operate under the assumption that we are separate entities fighting over finite resources just to survive as long as possible.
(And that’s the whole extent of it.)

Can you walk me through your reasoning?

(I’m also unclear on what "outside of a paradigm" actually means here. We are discussing human society, not some spiritual realm where things are accepted on faith. When dealing with belief systems whose truth cannot be verified through empirical methods, we have to judge them solely by their effects—both the psychological impact and the tangible, material consequences.)

Sam Martinez9 said:I can't speak for all types of systems, but an accounting system is really just a way to document what is happening within a corporation. In other words, it tracks processes from raw material sourcing and manufacturing all the way through to the final sale.

The same fundamental accounting principles were utilized during the era of socialism and are used today under capitalism; the mechanics haven't changed. You could even apply them to the structures of feudalism, slavery, or even primitive communal societies. You could use them to map out the behavior of early humans, from the moment they crafted an arrow to when they traded that arrow for something else, like a seashell.

Guess I’m just missing something here, huh?

Sandra Murphy33 said:How exactly?

I fail to see how that is logical or even remotely sensible within a paradigm where we operate under the assumption that we are separate entities fighting over finite resources just to survive as long as possible.
(And that’s the whole extent of it.)

Can you walk me through your reasoning?

(I’m also unclear on what "outside of a paradigm" actually means here. We are discussing human society, not some spiritual realm where things are accepted on faith. When dealing with belief systems whose truth cannot be verified through empirical methods, we have to judge them solely by their effects—both the psychological impact and the tangible, material consequences.)

I'm afraid I can't. It’s just one of those intuitive things—kind of like how you operate. See, I’m using plain old physics to describe how enslaving someone ruins the experience for the master (since their freedom gets hijacked by the obligation to care for the slave—that's a purely material thing), yet you keep trying to force some spiritual angle on me even though I haven't mentioned anything "spiritual" once. Twice, actually. You're just following your gut and projecting stuff onto me that I never even wrote. So, my gut tells me I can't explain it to you, so why bother?

Freedom is a spirit—pure and simple. It’s got nothing to do with physics.

ruggedraven36 said:Freedom is a spirit—pure and simple. It’s got nothing to do with physics.

Look, sure, freedom is spiritual—it's the highest kind of spirit—but actually living it is a physical reality, and taking it away? That's a concrete action. I'm a total advocate for liberty. To me, it's the ultimate value. Even God respects a person's freedom. Only absolute lowlife trash would even dare try to snatch someone else's liberty.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Reddit

I guess the hardest thing about these debates—something people tend to overlook without realizing it—is how difficult it is for our minds to actually grasp the sheer scale of biological or human eras on Earth. We understand the math behind the number 65 million, but it’s almost impossible to truly feel the weight of those 65 million years that have passed since the asteroid hit Florida. It feels much the same when we try to wrap our heads around 100,000 or 200,000 years and all the humans who lived through that span leading up to today. From that viewpoint, I suppose there isn't much difference between mentioning a billion years, 100 million, or 100 thousand. The numbers all feel equally abstract to us. Even the Middle Ages feel like a distant history that's hard to culturally connect with, let alone Ancient Greece, Egypt, or Mesopotamia. Those are periods and cultures we know somewhat well through architecture or written records, yet they still seem unimaginably far away and disconnected from our lives now. And that's only a few thousand years back. So, trying to mentally process 100,000 or 200,000 years ago is a huge stretch.

It’s also pretty tough being constantly bombarded with information today, where things like computers, the internet, airplanes, electricity, satellites, cars, schools, and office jobs are just taken for granted. Then you get hit with the fact that for 99% of human history, people didn't have any of that, nor could they have ever dreamed it might exist one day. Biologically speaking, I think we evolved as hunter-gatherers, with muscles, bones, teeth, speech, vision, smell, hearing, nervous systems, and digestion all fine-tuned for living in nature without clocks, calendars, or technology. Someone mentioned that hypothetically, we could take a baby from 100,000 years ago, bring them into the modern world, and successfully raise them. I think that's a bit of a skewed perspective; the more accurate way to look at it might be that we could take a baby born today and drop them 100,000 years into the past, and that world would be the "default" setting for them. Not this one. Or, maybe if we took a baby and pulled a random millennium out of a box containing 100,000 years, or even a random century out of a box of 1,000 centuries, in 99.5% of cases, that baby would end up in a world we’d consider quite primitive. In 99.9% of cases, it would be at least partially primitive. We also have to remember that most parts of the world were considered primitive by Western standards until just a few decades ago.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Look, sure, freedom is spiritual—it's the highest kind of spirit—but actually living it is a physical reality, and taking it away? That's a concrete action. I'm a total advocate for liberty. To me, it's the ultimate value. Even God respects a person's freedom. Only absolute lowlife trash would even dare try to snatch someone else's liberty.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Reddit

I’m not sure I follow you there. What does "consuming freedom is a material reality" even mean? Let's look at it this way: say you’re broke and I hand you a heavy winter coat just so you don't freeze to death in Chicago. Is that coat nothing more than "material reality"? To someone who looks at the world and sees only atoms and molecules, maybe. But that's a shallow way to see it. That coat is a gift—it's relief, it's gratitude, it's a connection between two people. Saying it's just matter is just empty abstraction.

First off, huge shoutout to the Quinn group for breaking this down so perfectly. We're talking about those "proteins" hardwired right into our DNA. That’s what defines us—it's our genetic blueprint.

Look, it's simple. Freedom, when you just talk about it, is nothing but an abstraction. It exists as a concept in the void, sure. But it only actually becomes real—only materializes—through existence. Once you start acting on it, it stops being an abstract idea because every action taken for or against it proves its reality. Same goes for the idea of "goodness." You show it by giving someone a jacket, which is just a physical piece of clothing. But all the feelings tied to that? Those aren't material. You can't measure them. Even the act of giving itself is a physical thing. Legally or socially, it's just a transaction. But the stuff behind it—your motivation to give and my feeling of receiving—that isn't material. It can't be turned into a physical object. Not sure if I made sense there.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Reddit