The Reality Of Universal Love: Darwin and Christ reconciled

[PillPuppetPoet]

"Since human beings are fundamentally the same in so many ways - while their manifestations vary, their potential is undoubtedly alike and they all share the same basic faculty for consciousness, pain and pleasure which gives them their moral significance - trying to restrict your love to just a selection of human beings rather than all of humanity is utterly illogical, and only demonstrates one's detachment from reality and his or her own inability for true objective evaluation itself. That being said, when people love only their family, tribe, nation, etc., in reality they are usually loving the whole of mankind through them. What I mean by this is that their seemingly parochial love is actually a Darwinian mechanism which connects them to the species as a whole; when they love their tribe over others, what they are really doing is loving the process of natural competitive selection which has been proven to advance the species as a whole. Realizing that their own tribe has just as much claim to supremacy as any other, showing open-hearted philanthropy to outsiders would do more harm than good; it would merely fly in the face of the Darwinian mechanism for species advancement and give sustenance to those who had not proven their worth on the battlefield. Even for a more modern man, who recognizes the intrinsic worth of every individual, certain 'choices' may be necessary in order to attain the best result for the species as a whole, only because he has transcended the realm of petty tribalism and attained to a true objective valuation, they will not be based upon narrow tribal loyalties, but objective characteristics, that cannot be because he does not love and pity those who draw the short straw.

The next big question is whether the parochial love is really of such a lesser status, a sign of a more primitive psychological development and abnormality that I am making it out to be here, or is it only the tension between these two types of love- the fact that they war within us and one has to lose out and thereby be denigrated -  and the process of History - the fact that parochial love seems to be the one very much on the retreat and swamped on all sides - that makes it appear that way to us? Could the loyalty to objectivity be the real disorder? Perhaps objectivity in this usage in an aberration of its true function to serve rather than undermine tribal loyalty.... No. Whereas in the past, tribalism served the species via Darwinian selection, now, with more advanced technological weaponry, it is a threat to the survival of life on earth. The power of assessing order of rank, which grows side by side with objectivity - in fact, properly speaking it is indistinguishable from it - is the greatest power on earth to advance the species, which is THE innermost desire of every human being on earth. It was a bit too saccharine when we praised true object love for its own sake; its superiority in dignity is not so much intrinsic to itself - the patriot does not necessarily fail to recognize the 'Being' of his adversaries; he merely in addition recognizes their lack of the quality of political allegiance with himself and places importance on it for the sake of his own survival- the superiority of objective valuation somewhat remains chiefly only in the modern age, not so much in its clearness of vision in terms of objectively human, or even stronger traits... but in of objectively less violent, belligerent or chauvinistic ones, a long with the recognition that it is a deliberate weeding out of such anti-social traits that is most essential to the survival of life on earth. This means it has the far greater quantum of power at its disposal for the benefit of mankind. For us to survive as a species, contra Nietzsche,  we have to privilege pacifism and Law above intelligences that initiate the use of violence, to seek out and humiliate the desire or perhaps even the capacity for war- that which was previously thought, and many of us still feel in our blood, is the noblest of human instincts." - Max J. Lewy

https://madnessaformoflove.blogspot.com/

[barn]

Hi @PillPuppetPoet

What does "I think therefore I'm mad" signify?

Imagine that you were responding to someone (I'll pretend) that had no prior knowledge of the original.

[PillPuppetPoet]

2 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi @PillPuppetPoet

What does "I think therefore I'm mad" signify?

Imagine that you were responding to someone (I'll pretend) that had no prior knowledge of the original.

I'll tell you if you give me your own opinion first.

[barn]

Just now, PillPuppetPoet said:

I'll tell you if you give me your own opinion first.

Can do.

It goes something like this:

"What's the alternative to comedy?... "

[PillPuppetPoet]

I don't follow you.   Explain?

[barn]

6 minutes ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

I don't follow you.   Explain?

Sorry.

There's no need to be all serious about everything, all the time. In fact, pretty daunting stuff should be moulded into lighthearted form, so that it doesn't impede (the individual's) life, at times. It follows, labels such as 'serious' and 'funny' do not follow rules akin to the motions of stars... and so labels, even serious ones can be applied to content with a 'lighthearted' sense. (meanwhile, content DOES matter, it's the observer that's different)

Am I making more sense now?

[PillPuppetPoet]

Ha ha, no that's not what I had in mind. Thanks for sharing how it strikes you though.

It is actually meant primarily as in 'Anyone who questions, anyone who thinks, is liable to be viewed as crazy by this insane society." (at least if he doesn't take precautions.) Of if not anyone, at least in my case, the reason I'm called crazy is highly related to the fact that I think differently - which in some ways is pretty much the same as saying I think at all. Real thinking has an inherent tendency to be 'different', especially in a crazy society like ours.  

In some of my writings, there is also the celebration of a kind of madness or irrationality. Martin Heidegger himself associated thinking with eschewing the claims of Reason:

 "Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the stiff-necked adversary of thought." Martin Heidegger

It could mean something like "My thinking leads me to embrace madness, the irrational side of human nature." Not necessarily in a light-hearted way.

19th and 20th Century philosophy arrived at the conclusion that Reason offered no guidance to action. So, once again, you can see how madness is basic to our nature according to 'thinking'.

[PillPuppetPoet]

Another thing I am getting at in my writing about 'madness', is to make light the supposed definition, and concentrate of the fact of how the word is actually applied to people who get the official label. In my view, the concept of madness as a mental disease is largely fictitious and fabricated by people's fears and imagination. In my view, the unwanted, covert or by-product meaning of 'people who go against societies norms' or 'think too much' is the only real meaning there is to it. And if you see it like that, madness is actually a GOOD thing that merely gets unfairly slandered. That's why I'm proud to call myself 'mad', in solidarity with all the other 'madmen', who are really just contrarians with terrible luck. 

The dictionary definition of madness doesn't match up with the way it is applied. There might be a few very rare cases of something resembling the dictionary definition, but basically its just a product of the madness of mainstream society and their fantastical imagination, a product of literary fare.

And I should say that definition is itself littered with absurdities. As I say, in reality, its not just people in madhouses who meet it; the entire public does. So its a terrible definition, totally out of kilter with the way it is used and a word obscured by non-sense and irrationality itself. If you have a whole country who is saying eggs are beans, well, the meanings of the words themselves kinda shift for all intents and purposes. 

Only philosophers can define who is really mad or not; but they're not in control. So I guess in a way I am saying it playfully; well, irreverently anyway. It shows how much weigh I put in the notion, how little respect I have for society's opinion about who is mad and who isn't. Its wry. Its heavily ironic. 

[barn]

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

Ha ha, no that's not what I had in mind. Thanks for sharing how it strikes you though.

It is actually meant primarily as in 'Anyone who questions, anyone who thinks, is liable to be viewed as crazy by this insane society." (at least if he doesn't take precautions.) Of if not anyone, at least in my case, the reason I'm called crazy is highly related to the fact that I think differently - which in some ways is pretty much the same as saying I think at all. Real thinking has an inherent tendency to be 'different', especially in a crazy society like ours.  

In some of my writings, there is also the celebration of a kind of madness or irrationality. Martin Heidegger himself associated thinking with eschewing the claims of Reason:

 "Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the stiff-necked adversary of thought." Martin Heidegger

It could mean something like "My thinking leads me to embrace madness, the irrational side of human nature." Not necessarily in a light-hearted way.

19th and 20th Century philosophy arrived at the conclusion that Reason offered no guidance to action. So, once again, you can see how madness is basic to our nature according to 'thinking'.

Is it close to the acknowledgement of the 'dark side' each human is capable of?

(I'm asking but at the same time I'm seeing it might appear as an oversimplification, you should know it's only for my better orientation...)

[barn]

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

in a way I am saying it playfully; well, irreverently anyway. It shows how much weigh I put in the notion, how little respect I have for society's opinion about who is mad and who isn't. Its wry. Its heavily ironic.  

... this does connotates with 'funny' and a dash of 'rebellion'. (to me)

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

In my view, the concept of madness as a mental disease is largely fictitious and fabricated by people's fears and imagination. In my view, the unwanted, covert or by-product meaning of 'people who go against societies norms' or 'think too much' is the only real meaning there is to it.

I can accept that, given how much our culture and values have shifted... I'm too, highly suspicious of the labels 'the livestock gets tagged with now-a-days'.

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

madness is actually a GOOD thing that merely gets unfairly slandered. That's why I'm proud to call myself 'mad', in solidarity with all the other 'madmen', who are really just contrarians with terrible luck. 

For now, right?! I'd imagine that in a more rational world, words would get 'healed' or 'restored'... then you wouldn't want to be called 'mad'.

(Sheesh... upside-down world it is.)

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

[...] If you have a whole country who is saying eggs are beans, well, the meanings of the words themselves kinda shift for all intents and purposes.

Oh, no. Yes. For sure. Absolutely.

It's one of the conundrums (my, at least) of living in a society that sort of uses a different lexis... dunno. Painstakingly annoying/laborious to get meanings across most times.

1 hour ago, PillPuppetPoet said:

Only philosophers can define who is really mad or not; but they're not in control. So I guess in a way I am saying it playfully; well, irreverently anyway.

Maybe. I don't know about that. All I know is that the things I call myself tend to leave a 'mark', or an impression if you'd like. But I guess as long as you KNOW what's what, it's ok. (not sure about the subliminal, the NLP angle though)

 

 

Ok. Thanks for the more than detailed response, I realise I have not contributed to the original post you've made.

Thanks again for the ample and meaningful clarification. (You helped me think about madness in new ways)

 

[Jsbrads]

Back to your main point.

You never made an argument as to why I should love all humanity equally, but I’ll reply anyway.

you should love your children more than your friend’s children, because your children have more in common with you. And the reality is that the form of nonspecific love that Liberals express for all of humanity has no mechanism by which to express itself.

Liberals claim to love all humanity, then pollute worse than others. Conservatives will say God, family country, then serve in a food kitchen, donate blood, charity at a much higher rate...

and as to sharing something with others, you are descended from a virus, just like everything else living on the planet, so don’t take antibiotics...

[PillPuppetPoet]

On 9/17/2018 at 7:49 AM, Jsbrads said:

Back to your main point.

You never made an argument as to why I should love all humanity equally, but I’ll reply anyway.

you should love your children more than your friend’s children, because your children have more in common with you. And the reality is that the form of nonspecific love that Liberals express for all of humanity has no mechanism by which to express itself.

Liberals claim to love all humanity, then pollute worse than others. Conservatives will say God, family country, then serve in a food kitchen, donate blood, charity at a much higher rate...

and as to sharing something with others, you are descended from a virus, just like everything else living on the planet, so don’t take antibiotics...

I think I did make an argument or two. The fact that human beings are fundamentally similar, and can all feel pleasure and pain which is the root of their moral significance. Or how if you love people for who they are - for their 'virtue', as Stefan Molyneux argues - your own arbitrary relation to them is of little or no importance. I also argued that even apparent tribalism is a Darwinian mechanism by which the species has been advanced, so even that constitutes a form of species-love. Finally, I indicated that failure to live peacefully and compassionately with all humanity now constitutes a grave threat to our continued survival as a species due to the progress of destructive technologies. 

Thank you for your reply.

[MahtiSonni]

I love my family and my nation.  That love is not intellectually based; it is moral and instictive.  Since humans are at odds with each other on individual as well as group basis, I have to pick sides and my hierarchy is clear: my duty is for my family and nation, the rest can have the crumbs at the table, if any are left.

Loving everyone the same sounds to me suspiciously lot like not loving anyone at all.  It reminds me of lefties who claim to love humanity but for some odd reason hate everyone they know.

edit: I forgot to add that I have absolutely no faith in the fairy tales of St. Darwin of Galapagos Islands.

[neeeel]

On 9/24/2018 at 12:05 PM, MahtiSonni said:

I love my family and my nation.  That love is not intellectually based; it is moral and instictive.  

 

 

How is it moral to love your nation? How is it moral to love your family, especially if ones family arent that nice as people?

 

 

Quote

edit: I forgot to add that I have absolutely no faith in the fairy tales of St. Darwin of Galapagos Islands.

 

Throwing words like "fairy tales" around is not an argument

[Jsbrads]

The hierarchy of family, locale, state is a evolved protective mechanism. 

[MahtiSonni]

9 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

The hierarchy of family, locale, state is a evolved protective mechanism. 

That is one reasonable perspective; it is also fulfilling a religious duty.

[Jsbrads]

Perhaps for you