The Philosopher's Gazebo

[HughJ]

Thanks for explaining. I've never taken a class on Hinduism and am not well-versed in faith traditions, nor can I say I am worldly as I have not even visited India as a tourist. I did get the feeling that to simplify "Hinduism" into a single word and aim to define it was an oversimplification, but I wasn't aware explicitly of its true multifaceted nature.

When I mentioned untouchability it wasn't a jab at Hinduism, it was a perceived flaw in the idea of "reward-based reincarnation." I understood Your explanation of reincarnation and the progression/regression of souls according to their abidance by their Dharma sounds much more righteous.

I also like the idea of God as Mother Energy, an incomprehensible entity beyond our understanding. The idea of such an entity, operating on what I assume would be a set of laws she created for herself, is reminiscent of the perception of God as the soul of the Earth - a soul infinitely larger than a human being's, occupying a vessel so massive as the Earth so as to create a stage upon which our infinitesimal human dramas could play out.

[Ironbound]

The soul is called the Ātma, God is called Paramātma, or Ultimate Soul. Therein the philosophies of Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadhvaita seek to explain exactly what the relationship between the Ātma and are Paramātma is, and exactly what part of the divine energy is within us, with us, and is us. I've already elaborated this earlier, but the gist of it is thus:

Advaita philosophy is the oldest doctrine of the Sanatana Dharma. At a time when the ancient philosophy of our society was forgotten in favour of mere ritual and dogma, when the powerful had broken the caste system into a perversion of what it was intended to be, when society was oppressed by thoughtless kings and lip-servicing priests, Hinduism was at grave peril of being eroded into a lesser dogma. It was at such time that Buddhism and Jainism gained ground, for they are but the same as the Sanatana Dharma, and oreafhbthe same concept of moral Dharma in a simplified form to the people, shorn of the mythology and rituals of the parent faith. However, the heart of the Buddhist does away with the mind of the Brahman, and Buddhism rejected Vedic knowledge and was silent about divinity, making it a watered down, agnostic concept of the same.

Advaita was a school of thought propounded by one of the greatest of Hindu seers and revivalists of culture, Sankaracharya. Advaita means 'undivided', and basically states that the Ātma and the Paramātma are one and the same; the divine energy is what constitutes us, we are the divine, God is us, our souls are God. "Aham Brahmosi", said Sankaracharya, "I am God".

At the time, it was just the shot in the arm that Hinduism needed, to instill philosophical revival into a dogmatic society and create a revolution in the people, boosting their confidence and knowledge of themselves, and reigniting their association to Hinduism, reversing its erosion at the hands of simplistic daughter philosophies and protecting Vedic knowledge from extinction or perversion.

But then, how can god the supreme and perfect, god which by definition is mother energy pure and incomparably singular, be divisive among so many weaker souls, each with their own imperfections and Dharmic flaws? How can man equate hinself to god?

Such were the questions brought forth by another great revivalist of Hindu culture, Madhvacharya, founder of the Madhva sect of Brahmanic philosophy. Dvaita philosophy, meaning 'divided in two/dual' states that the Ātma is categorically NOT the same as the Paramātma, but two different entities. The divine energy can be with us, yes, we can seek it as plants seek light, and grow towards it with our own efforts to abide by natural law, and we can attain salvation by successive regeneration...but we can't BE god. Man is not god, he can find god and have godhood in him when he is pious or perfectly aligned with his Dharma, and if his soul os pure it can join with God, but he cannot and will never be, by definition, the same as God.

Visishtadhvaita, 'qualified undividedness/ monoism with diversification' is a compromise philosophy propounded by Ramanujacharya. It seeks to explain that there is only one Brahman, one Shakti, but it assumes various forms, instilled in different qualified aspects in different souls. Basically trying to say that God exists is different forms and levels in different Ātmas.

Personally, I am of the Dvaita school (in fact, I am of the Madhva sect of Brahmins, of the line of Madhvacharya) which does not accept the notion of God being the same as man, be it with whatever qualifications or in whatever levels, for theoretically that implies that god can potentially exist '100%' in a sufficiently pure Ātma. Like I said, the soul and the Ultimate Soul can never be the same by definition, and it is arrogant to assume life to be equated as such. But that's now the realm of extremely minute philosophical detail, so we'll let such obscure debates pass.

[HughJ]

Perhaps it's the individualist in me that wouldn't be able to accept Advaita faith - to be a part of a collective consciousness beyond mortal comprehension is a humbling premise, but it's something I wouldn't want to be a part of, in a similar vein that I would not want to go to Hell OR Heaven.

In joining the Paramātma, it seems in line with all I know about Hinduism that a person would lose their individuality, in all senses. They would become part of something greater, and in the eyes of the Hindu, shed their limited form, limited knowledge, and limited experience. But to me, this is a cost, not a benefit. Limitations - even every human's inability to know for sure what lies outside their mind, or their inability to live forever, or their inability to know anything are what characterize us. Our unique patterns of knowledge and lifestyle are integral parts of our identity, not to mention the soul I believe exists within a person. To turn in everything up to and including your own soul so as to gain infinite knowledge, life, and power would still be to sacrifice the individual Will.

I imagine I would lean toward the Dvaita school, both for this objectively foolish conviction that the individual life is the only life worth living, and for your proposed reason, that equating God to a human is both terribly arrogant and nonsensical by definition.

At the same time, however, I must admit that I love the idea of a great soul occupying the Earth - if it is not THE God, the omnipotent and omnipresent Universal Energy you described earlier, then perhaps it is a soul greater than humans' yet limited in power. A local God, of sorts. Then, should we discover another nest of intelligent life, another planet in outer space which features persons (who I define, as part of my philosophy, a soul-filled vessel); they would have their own local God, a planet filled with a great soul originating from the same imperceptible, inexplicable realm as our own souls.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

Hopeful Lee it's okay for me to explain my system here too? I'm really enthusiastic about it. I explained it once before in a thread last year, but I have new info since then.

I believe that Earth is a simulation and our real home is a planet named Cerri. Cerri isn't an afterlife; it's where we're born in the first place. Not everyone gets sent to Earth. People get sent here for specific purposes like helping others, and when we "die" here we go back.

Unlike some religions where there's a perfect place with no problems for heroes and a place of eternal torture for villains, Cerri isn't and doesn't have either of those. It doesn't have darkness like Earth does, but there are still problems. No specific problem exists forever though, whether it's a conflict with the self or a conflict with different people or nations. There is fighting at home. We have more advanced weapons than on Earth, although no dark things like torture. There are also elements that can be utilized in combat. There are four basic combat elements- land, air, water, and fire. The first three fight in those respective environments. I'm currently trying to figure out fire, since it's the only one that doesn't have a naturally existing environment and grows instead, but current data suggests if there are no enemies who use your element, than your element can be used as defensive cover fire.

We have better senses and physical ability at home, and can also eat more before being full. It's not unusual for athletes to be able to jump over several-story buildings. Athletic body types: juggernaut, epopt, infantry. In combat, juggernauts are the bulky ones. They have max attack and defense, but minimum speed. Epopts on the other hand have minimum attack and defense but max speed. Infantry have 50% of each. They're faster and stronger than the average person, but not as fast as epopts and not as strong as juggernauts. The smarty nerve gives people extremely fast reflexes, to the point where dodging bullets would be a boring exercise for them. I imagine it's mostly epopts who have this. There are weapon classes for each of them. Artist body types: power, creative. Artists have flexible bodies. Power artists (ex: musicians) use art for combat and are 100% power focused, power literally being their art. Creative artists (ex: illusionists) use art for imagination or self-expression. Using the example of a golem-like entity meant to guard an artifact, the creative artist would be the person who designs it and the power artist would be the one who makes it work. There are also intellectual bodies (ex: scientists). Their bodies are frail since they focus on mental activities instead of combat.

Instead of dying, people go into a coma that they wake up from eventually. How long they're in the coma depends on the type of injury.

Age = factors like mental strength and pain tolerance. Like the condition I have (so rare on Earth it doesn't have a name, not rare at all at home), people literally stop aging when they reach their peak. Older people don't get wrinkled or have memory loss, though. The physical effects of aging stop around young adulthood. The oldest known that I know about is around 1000. People up there are usually either guardians or rogues, who I'll get back to later. Kids can do combat at home. They can handle weapons just as well as adults. People have an invisible protective layer that recedes inward as they age, so kids don't feel nearly as much pain from the same injury an adult would. No one is given more pain than they can handle mentally (this also goes emotionally, not just physically).

Gender is a set of vague mannerisms involving how you carry yourself, and has nothing to do with traits like aggressiveness or passiveness or with physical body. The bodies earth considers male and female do exist at home, just without a gender attached to them, so there are males that earth would consider biologically female and females that earth would consider biologically male. Gender is an aura people are automatically able to pick up on at home.

The existence of aliens has been confirmed. One of the oldest known groups is called the Empyrean Council. Although Cerri is more advanced in many ways than Earth, it's less advanced in space travel. The first group of astronauts went to space around a year ago and were attacked. (they're fine now)

Getting back to guardians and rogues. Each country has a guardian, and they have a kid partner for combat called a sentinel. Each branch of guardian and sentinel has their own element (other than the four broad elements mentioned earlier, there's also things like ice, electricity, etc.). Rogues are enemies. They believe that controlling people is the only way to help them (evil isn't real; everyone that does bad stuff at home genuinely believes they're helping others). They also have sentinels. Earth has some of the same countries as Cerri like Scotland and Egypt, and Cerri also has some countries that Earth doesn't like Serenity. Each country has its own language.

Everything is optional. For example on Earth most people have to go to school and then work if they want food, water, and shelter. On Earth not doing anything is looked down on unless you have a condition that prevents you from doing things, but at home it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to not have any official responsibilities. People like this are called hobbyists. Also, the education system is thousands of times better than any on Earth.

Sleep isn't required and would only be for those who want it, and bathroom functions don't exist at all. Food and water are still important, but gaining and losing weight don't exist since everyone is in bodies that match their soul.

Media at Earth comes from media at home, so things like Pokemon and such also exist at home, but with higher quality and no darkness. (things like yanderes in anime aren't real)

I'll add more if I think of anything I missed.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot meat. There are animals with souls, and then creatures that aren't alive and exist for food (ex: most fish). Meat also grows naturally as a crop.

[Strider]

Would you consider this a religion, or a philosophy?

[Ironbound]

Your account seems like a history or a chronicled description more than anything else. It's certainly interesting; have you considered writing in detail about it? Perhaps adapt your knowledge into a collection, a book?

Also, strider, where is the difference? If the generally accepted definition of a religion is a set of beliefs pertaining to a way of life (not to be confused with mythology or lore), and a philosophy is a way of thinking and a study of existential knowledge, then a religion ahould be a philosophy and vice versa; a study of knowledge of life and a set of beliefs to model life based on such knowledge.

[Strider]

ICSW could consider them differently. That's what I was asking about.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

More spirituality. At home, religion has a different definition which is closer to what on Earth you'd call a fandom.

[Spineblade]

ICSW, your account certainly has a lot of specific detail attached to it. How/from where have you sourced the specifics of these beliefs?

[Felicity]

Also, strider, where is the difference? If the generally accepted definition of a religion is a set of beliefs pertaining to a way of life (not to be confused with mythology or lore), and a philosophy is a way of thinking and a study of existential knowledge, then a religion ahould be a philosophy and vice versa; a study of knowledge of life and a set of beliefs to model life based on such knowledge.

The requirements are different, I guess. Faith doesn't need much evidence for you to model your life around it, part of why there's so much conflict between science and religion. Philosophy needs evidence or experience to come about as "a study of existential knowledge". You need knowledge. Faith and knowledge aren't the same thing so, yeah. Religious philosophies come about when you have enough faith that you accept religious teachings as fact. It's the same general end point but still a difference there.

[Ironbound]

Perhaps, yes, but we could argue that there is a difference between faith and true religion, as well. Faith may be pure dogma, and need not be based on any scientific (be it a physical, social, psychological or philosophical science) fact or observation...but it is more than merely faith that makes a religion. If religion is the step up from faith, then spirituality is the step up from religion, and one cannot be truly spiritual based on dogma or unscientific ritualism, for that is in denial not only of the world as it exists but of knowledge and the refusal to accept other sources of knowledge...which is, I suppose, exactly what plagues so much of the populace, and which is what has always been the cause of all so-called 'religious' war.

I should amend what I said and specify that spirituality, and not merely faith or religious studies, is the same as philosophy, and that a spiritual person is by default also a philosophical one, with reference to my earlier post's statement.

[Ironbound]

Well, a lot of stuff has been going on in the past few days, but I'm sure our corner here will remain the same.

Let's bring up that old Pleasure Machine conundrum arguing against hedonism as a motivator.

For those who don't know, this Experience Machine or Pleasure Machine is a thought experiment by a philosopher called Robert Nozick. It attempts to refute ethical hedonism by imagining a choice between everyday reality and an apparently preferable simulated reality.

The primary idea of classical hedonism, especially from the utilitarian point of view, is that "pleasure is good", and so any aspect of life that is not pleasurable to a person (however subjective that may be) does nothing to increase one's well-being and is therefore not desirable. Nozick attacks this thesis by trying to show that there is something other than pleasure that has value and thereby increases our well-being, thus defeating hedonism as a philosophy.

Imagine a machine that could give you whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences you could want. Assume that psychological science has figured out a way to stimulate your brain to induce experiences that you can't differentiate from those you'd have apart from the machine. Basically a simulator that can make you live your dreams, as ideal as your own desires, and so perfect that you can't tell it apart from real experiences that you've had. The question is, if given the choice, would you prefer the machine to real life? The logic is that if pleasure was the only intrinsic value or motivator, people would have an overriding reason to be hooked up to an "experience machine," which would produce eternally favorable sensations.

Here's the logical path: If pleasure, as hedonism theorises, is all that matters, we would do a thing which gave us more pleasure (i.e., plug in the machine) than do a thing which gave us less pleasure (i.e., not plug in the machine) and so, if we have reason to not plug in the machine, maximising pleasure is not the only motivator.

Nozick provides us with three reasons not to plug into the machine.

1. "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." That is to say, a person wants to do certain things, and physically execute such actions, not just have the experience of doing them.

2. "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." People want actual achievement, they want to be a certain sort of person, not, as nozick says, a thing hooked to a machine.

And third most of all:

3. Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). This in particular is a demotivator for people who want to self-actualise or discover a greater meaning to themselves, or to use a cliché, people who want some kind of enlightenment or spiritual or philosophical growth. With the pleasure machine, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality (though the experience of it can be simulated, it is again a man-made fallacy.)

The argument therefore tries to conclude that hedonism itself is a flawed approach to life, and this raises the question of why only felt experiences dictate what can and cannot be done ethically to an animal.

There are counter-arguments, of course, but I'd like to see what you all think about this and make your own analyses before I spring a different viewpoint.

[Kurotsune]

Sure, I'll bite.

If only because I entirely disagree with Nozick's views and this gives me the opportunity to tackle his points one by one.

"It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them."

Yes, and it's because the actions are pleasurable that we continue doing them. The brain works through a simple reward system for habit-creation, and the hormonal discharge when we accomplish the things our brain considers "good habits" is what keeps us coming back.

Sure living in the fabricated reality means things would "lose their appeal" but using that same logic you could just live another experience - That's the main problem with Nozick's statement; He's effectively arguing between living on Earth or going to Paradise.

And the last two can be argued as one piece:

"Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob."

Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). This in particular is a demotivator for people who want to self-actualise or discover a greater meaning to themselves, or to use a cliché, people who want some kind of enlightenment or spiritual or philosophical growth. With the pleasure machine, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality (though the experience of it can be simulated, it is again a man-made fallacy.)

Because they're completely subjective. Not everyone wants to be hooked to a machine, yet not everyone would disagree with it either. Some people don't give two shits about accomplishment and simply want comfort.

But ultimately, the downside to Nozick's point is that... His arguments effectively fuel hedonism.

Because what he does is simply describe a situation that wouldn't give him pleasure. Because Nozick makes it clear in his statements that he gains pleasure from real achievement, and what fuels him is real achievement. At the end of the day, he's saying that it's his pleasure for those achievements that move him, and thus, he's supporting Hedonism while attempting to disprove it.

But at the end of the day none of that matters because Hedonism is okay for some people and isn't for others. Most schools of thought work like this. Some people are moved by pleasure and some aren't. Some people are moved by logic and some aren't. Some people are moved by emotion and some aren't.

Hedonism never has nor will apply to everyone, which is why trying to prove that it doesn't do just that is entirely moot.

But it is a cool read, at least.

[Ironbound]

Successfully baited kuro. That's a check mark for Thursday.

I'm glad you're here. And you've very succinctly pointed out exactly why nozick is relegated to the textbooks. I'd been looking to see if folk would like to scratch their heads a bit on it, but you've sniped it already so I'll just have to pull out a different, less hoary topic next time. (This is mid seventies stuff after all)

I think, though, to add to the subject, the idea is a running theme of The Matrix. Agent Smith's account of the place's history goes on about humans rejecting a VR paradise; however, Cypher is willing to betray his pals because he would rather get back into an (arguably less perfect) Matrix as a rich man with ask his desires fulfilled than continue to live in the harsh realities outside the simulation, despite knowing that it's just that: a simulation. While the later Matrix is not so paradise-like in the literal sense, it is a lot like the Experience Machine, since Cypher is given his desires, as he says:

"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy, and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."

Which is precisely what you say about nozick's idea being entirely subjective, and an ironic support of hedonism.

At the end of the day, I ramble about Indic philosophy again: happiness (which is a greater term than pleasure) is a motivator, and we live in order to be happy, to trigger our brains to continue what would otherwise be an arguably pointless existence in order to accomplish a targeted happiness and keep at it. The idea of what really constitutes happiness is again subjective: to some it may merely be material pleasure, to some it may be something else, and so on. The Dharmic and Karmic principles of life explain that logic of the priority scale of motivators and consequences, but I've already talked about that for about four pages so we'll leave it at that.

Let us pick up the tangent on genetic engineering and eugenics. How much is ethical, and how much is too much? Where and how does the Nuremberg code influence our actions today, and what would you say of the potential, both humane and inhumane?

[Strider]

For the sake of argument, I'll say that eugenics and genetic engineering are not morally reprehensible. This is skipping over that fact that it will be very difficult to get to a point where such procedure can be performed safely, and such progress would probably require human experimentation, which I'm not comfortable with.

The idea of using genetic or artificial selection on humans is not new. For years people have considered using manipulation of the human genome to eliminate or prevent diseases and conditions, and to elevate or augment the human faculties in some manner. Both have the goal of increasing the standards of living of the people affected. No one can argue that this is not an important goal. However, there is dispute over the ethics of these processes.

Genetic engineering for the purpose of preventing disease is certainly justifiable. There are very few arguments against this goal, except those of faith. The idea that preventing a disease or mutation in a person is 'playing god' makes little sense. If it is wrong to prevent diseases from birth, on the principle that "it was meant to be", or that we are "playing god", than it cannot be right to save or cure a person of a natural affliction at any point in their life, because, again, "it was meant to be". This argument can also be countered by the story of the man/woman in the flood. The conclusion that genetic engineering or eugenics should not be practiced because it is "playing god" is clearly erroneous.

Another, more controversial purpose of genetic engineering is personal enhancement. This would be any case in which genetic manipulation is used to change a child for reasons such as physical strength, beauty, or intelligence. Some might argue against this on the principle that it is wrong to change the physical traits of a child, when they have no input, and cannot give their consent on the matter. Children however, do not choose their parents. They are subject to the whims of pure chance on the matters of their location, physical health, intelligence, social class, and a number of other parameters. Genetic changes enacted by parents amount to little in this vast sea of luck.

"Genetic engineering and eugenics have been used for evil, and should not be used" is another argument. "The methods used in Nazi Germany, Japan, and even the United States are reasons enough to abandon this pursuit." First, the use of a procedure or object does not determine its nature. In fact the fear of earlier atrocities in the public mind might in fact provide excellent incentive to strictly control future programs of this kind. If a public program were to use abhorrent methods, the public would immediately cry for it to be shut down. In the case of a private enterprise, the public would be ignorant of the experiments, in which case it would be meaningless to debate the ethics of such a program.

A final argument against genetic engineering and eugenics is that these methods of human enhancement will discriminate against poorer people. It seems very likely that the richest people would have the most access to an expensive procedure. But what would they use it for? Increased physical prowess? Beauty? Intelligence? The richest portion of the population already has methods where it gains an edge over the poor in these aspects. They can afford personal trainers, plastic surgery, and tutors for their children. It would simply give the rich a slightly more convenient and reliable method for their purposes. At the same time, it would in fact be capable of preventing diseases and mutations more common to the malnourished and poverty-stricken. The benefit which eugenics can give to the this poorer group outweigh any small accentuation in the difference between the rich and the poor.

Of course, this is just based on the assumption that we magically have the capability to do this type of thing reliably and safely.

Feel free to critique me.

[HughJ]

I'd advise both of you to watch Gattaca, a 1997 film starring Ethan Hawke. It's an intriguing story about an impostor as he seeks to accomplish his childhood dreams, all within the context of a society defined by eugenics.

I'm against eugenic procedures, but not firmly. The idea of changing the body drastically, even before conception as in the case of Gattaca, doesn't sit well with the Rasta in me. Though I am willing to take medicine or undergo surgery that would save my life (Bob Marley's devoutness famously killed him), in a way, selective reproduction is crossing a line for me.

[Strider]

I have watched it. However, it was so long ago, that I only really remember the basic plot. I can't recall the actual viewpoint put forth in the movie, and their methods of making points.

[HughJ]

A lot of it was contextual/anecdotal because it followed a (admittedly unique) person's life in the society. There were very few exposition drops, and the world was indeed just foreign enough for you to be intrigued but not so far out you felt abandoned as a viewer (at least for me). It's a great cinematic work in that respect, and chronically underrated

A large factor of the movie is the heavy amount of discrimination that ends up being placed on people born naturally. Slurs include "degenerates," "God children," and if you want to show you're not all that prejudiced, "love children." People predisposed to physical limitations and short longevity, despite intelligence, talent, or even without confirmed disability (as in the case of the hero, who has a 99% predisposition for heart disease, but seems to be fine) are not allowed into the higher rungs of the corporate rat race because they are seen as a liability. Despite the fact that discrimination based on genetic data is not legal, the law is largely ignored, and people's DNA is sampled regardless in the form of drug tests.

Furthermore, nearly everyone we see in the movie is white (Caucasian), and displays Anglo-Saxon features (despite the main character's Italian father), and I doubt it's by chance or because the director's racist. You come to the uncomfortable realization that if you really want to give your child every edge they can have in their life, you might as well make them appeal to existing prejudices. Have a son, not a daughter... and if you have any genes in your body for lighter skin, give them that, too, so that they can evade racist discrimination.

The promotion of eugenics among the general populace allows prejudice to spiral out of control because the unfortunate fact is that it's always been easier to submit than to rise up - in Gattaca, you don't even have to submit, you can just join the discriminatory side by engineering a perfect child.

[Strider]

So what's your opinion on the society as a whole? On the basis of comfort of living, was society better off?

Do you think that eugenics would increase discrimination, or simply morph it into a different form, in which case the benefits could outweigh the costs?

[HughJ]

I think the society ended up manifesting some of the worst aspects of current developed Western society in the most realistic way possible.

Outside of the worst slums in the country, you're not going to be going to bed hungry - $10 will get you enough food for the day out of McDonalds - and you don't have to fight off warlords or genocidal maniacs like in Africa. But in the Information Era, pretty much everything we say or do is recorded - on the phone via wiretaps, online via IP address, and a large amount of private corporate data is sold through the black market to other governments and (typically foreign) businesses of questionable legality. It's almost impossible to live down anything you say or do on the Internet, at least provided somebody has the power to trace computer data and location of access. We no longer suffer as much from the transience and inaccuracy of human memory as we see in oral histories and basic societies, but that came at the cost of privacy and a sort of freedom to get away from past mistakes.

In many ways, a society that makes the human genome and eugenics part of mainstream knowledge and the market is just the next level of sacrificing privacy and freedom. People will always find a way to manipulate this circumstance, even outside of a capitalist rat-race that encourages the full utilization of information (for better or worse). Now you can be held culpable not even for what you did (in a compromised state of mind or otherwise) but for what you could do. In 2016, you might be denied a job at a law firm, despite all of your skills and talents, because you posted nude pics online when you were 17. In Gattaca's hypothetical future (which could be set as close as 2045), you can get denied any job above that of a janitor because the fact that you might die of a heart attack at 40 makes you a liability to any employer or insurance firm.

So I'm against the introduction of human engineering to society at large, for intrinsic faith-like convictions as well as the potentially disastrous effects on human society. You can't always expect revolutionary inventions to work out as "well" as the uneasy state of Mutually Assured Destruction that the nuclear warhead put us in. Inventions push us forward, regardless of whether we want to go back.

Perhaps in outstanding circumstances, I might be alright with the application of genetic manipulation - such as if we could reconfigure a person's genetic data and inject the modified sample in a form of gene therapy to help counter a form of cancer. But even then, we could be opening Pandora's box by legally sanctioning such activity, as the materials and methods could quickly go to the black market and revolutionize society from the bottom up.

You might argue that we could apply genetic manipulation for the furthering of humankind - such as if the government were to engineer an elite group of physically advanced human beings to explore space - but aside from all of the ethical complications in deciding the future of a human being from birth, it would be much easier to just send robots.

[Strider]

Yeah, I'm no fan of the idea either, partly because the process of getting there would be difficult and dangerous, while the benefits are debatable. But a quick question: For all the decrease in privacy which the internet has brought, would you rather that it did not exist?

[HughJ]

No, I think the Internet is an important tool. I genuinely believe people have gotten smarter with the capacity to search up the answer to any question they have, gotten more skilled by finding tutorials all over YouTube, gotten more in touch with themselves by finding friends and lifestyles they never knew about, and gotten more variety in their outlook (as TV tends to be one-sided).

However, it's a tool that comes with a price. By going online, you are putting yourself on the grid, even more so than was previously allowed by information like corporate deals, purchase records on your credit card, and government censuses. You are sacrificing a part of your freedom, and a good amount of it especially if you associate your real name or face with the actions you take online.

It's a trade-off - you can't expect to access the whole of human knowledge without sacrificing a parts of your own identity, for better or worse.

[Ironbound]

As Hugh said, technology pushes us forward even if we wished to go back.

Life is by definition an adaptation to constant change. We cannot regress, unless the change itself loops back to what it once was. The internet is here to stay, and we must use it to further our own progress, or else lag behind. Of course, on an individual level, anything is possible, and if I wanted to renounce the world and become a mendicant living in a secluded hermitage, with no material possessions beyond the essentials of basic sustenance and hygiene, I always can, and internet be damned. But as a society, we can't, and shouldn't, try to reverse a progression in normal circumstances, unless it's something which is in the nature of a counterintuitive tradition which has attained the time to go (like blood sacrifices or something), and the internet is hardly such a universal evil. In fact, all things considered, it's a great force for unity and good, almost a natural force like fire; it has its uses for both good and evil, but there we enter the realm of semantics and moral sentiments, and we can't blame the existence of fire for the burning of Rome, or wish to go back to being apes with sticks because of what evil fire can do.

I must say that I'm glad this place is seeing some activity again. The fact that it exists and is able to hold its own in as volatile a place as TJ is heartening. My thanks to all of our participants.

And now, to being up something else, here is a statement that Gautama the Buddha had said as part of his philosophy: "Desire is the root of all sorrow. Where there is no desire, there shall be no suffering."

And yet, is not man motivated by desire? Please, let me know your interpretations and thoughts about this.

[HughJ]

Oh wow, what a fascinating prompt (not sarcasm). I'm on my phone currently but later today I'll definitely write more for this.

Yeah, Trainer's Journal is a little screwy but what can you expect from the forum equivalent of the Daily's (Anonymous) Opinion section. I think this thread does so well because it actually requires a little bit of reading and there's a sort of mutual understanding that we won't waste too much time with wholly unbased or unrelated statements. I feel that this isn't even a debate thread so much as it is a sort of symposium (I said this on Kuro's debate guidelines thread) because we're not making arguments so much as we are sharing perspectives and collectively learning.

I would like to apologize to Strider because I felt I did not prompt him enough to respond as I was sharing my opinions - the interaction ended up being a little one-sided. I suppose the person that answers a prompt first often ends up taking that role though (see the Platonic dialogues). So I would invite him to share anything on the subject of eugenics he had left before I answered this new prompt regarding the Buddha himself.

[HughJ]

I think the Buddha was very wise in his statement that "Desire is the root of all sorrow." Sorrow, after all, is a feeling of sadness brought on most often by loss or disappointment.

I also think that human beings are motivated by desire, as you said. While this is initially counter-intuitive - in a tautological fashion, we might deduce the absurd conclusion that "human beings are motivated by sorrow" - it is actually a circumstance that can coexist with the Buddha's wisdom.

Why would someone argue that the Buddha's words make no sense? Well, although when we desire something and fail to receive it, we are unhappy; when we do receive something we desire, we are happy, as a simple function of evolution. Our brain must reward us for actions we take to secure what we want. So, desire is a mixed basket, a 50/50 that leads us to sorrow depending on the situation.

This isn't true, however, because even in the circumstance where a person receives what they want, they are only positioning themselves for more sorrow further down the line. I can see two possible scenarios after someone receives something they've been desiring: the first is disillusionment, and the second is anxiety.

In the first scenario of disillusionment, the person has become so fixated on the process of obtaining the thing or their own illusory perception of the thing that when they actually receive it, they are disappointed and disinterested. Think of Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby, who dedicated about 10 years of his life to forming a relationship with a girl he met just once before, Daisy. And when he finally managed to achieve this, after sacrificing his morality by getting involved with the mafia and seducing Daisy away from her (admittedly dishonest) marriage with Tom, he felt hollow inside. In a sense, he was experiencing sorrow, brought on by the loss of the desirous illusion he had fallen in love with.

In the second scenario of anxiety, the person actually does enjoy the item they've desired and obtained. However, they love this item so much that if they ever were to lose it, it would be a devastating blow to their psyche. In this case, think of a person who dreamed lifelong of being a parent and has finally had a child. They might become overprotective and invasive; when that child left the house at 18 to pursue their own life, they would experience a certain amount of sorrow, but more than anything they would suffer if that child were to die.

Sorrow is a complex emotion, but it's an ancient one. For this reason, many people might think that even if desire was indeed the root of sorrow, it would be unavoidable, because desire is so deeply woven into the human consciousness. The Buddha, obviously, thinks otherwise, as his promotion of the art of meditation and the rejection of worldly possessions evinces a belief that we can 'shed' such compromising mentalities. If desire is indeed the root of sorrow, then we must simply stop desiring worldly objects, as these are the ones that lead us to disillusionment and anxiety. The purest desire would undoubtedly be the search for enlightenment: you could not be disillusioned at the attainment of the best possible state of soul, or anxious when Nirvana is everlasting and indelible.

Finally, what of instinctual desires? Basal necessities such as consumption (of food and drink), sleep, or sexual reproduction? The only argument I can imagine for this is that someone on the path to enlightenment and the transcendence of sorrow would simply have to engage in this activities without desiring them. I am overall unclear on this theory, however, and would like to turn it over to Viri or another philosopher to explain.

I'd also like to hear anyone else's thoughts on the prompt Viri has offered.