The macroscopic world has ample unsolved things as well, such as inflation and dark energy.
The list of unsolvables is a series of manifold infinities: Kardashians. Torque versus RPM in Japanese automobiles. The third-knob under your office chair.
You act as if the society projected were a thin-in-itself, not a superficial construct, with enough consistency to illustrate Huxley's larger points.
If you want to build a relatively complete socio-econmic and cultural model based on the information in Brave New World, you'd likely discover it has as many unworkable assumptions as Westeros!
The object is not to view a hypothetical future society. It is how to understand the nature of our own beings, within the regimentation of our own. It is a critique of the technocrat, who worships Henry Ford, to the exclusion the capacity for John Milton.
It also can be understood better, by being familiar with HG Wells utopian fantasies - who Huxley is indirectly critiquing and satirizing. He sees the outcome of the Well's socialist utopias as being deterministic, machine societies. You know, like one may extrapolate from Tyson!
I will simply leave this as a counter, to your claim of the 'health" of Capitalism. You needn't agree agree with the entirety of the conceit, nor endorse the conclusion. it's enough to acknowledge several of the salient points made - regarding them as largely factual.
Then make extraordinary definitions of the term "health". LOL
You get the current academic system of research grants, where funded evidence is produced and the peer-review system is skewed by endowments for tenure, etc.
Untrue. You entirely misrepresent that work, which I really haven't the patience to refute.
If we do assume you to be making a case that is substantiated by fact, "Devils" is a work made 20 years later than BNW. It is quite possible for a man to have a rational critique of economic and ethics at the peak of his academic and intellectual powers, and later have them either degrade from subsequent emotional or mental conditions - or otherwise simply to have them inconsistent by application to another domain.
You suffer from juvenile "know-it-all-ism", where the body of a life's work all have equivalency, and represent fixed values, with regard ti those who produced them. This is the real shame of the decline of actual, classically liberal education - replaced by Wikipedia factoids and the certainties of prevailing doctrine.
I don't believe you have actually given Huxley or his body of work any considered thought at all. Much less the same due to the entire discipline of philosophy and science to which he made his critique. Rather, you have grabbed onto which statements and observations of others, as they appealed to your disposition, having seemed to you "factual".
Of course, I may be in error. But my experience is much greater than yours, I am pretty certain.
Ultimately, each of us is tasked with the core ethical proposition: to become better and more human in ourselves and in our intentions towards others.
This is our equipment and our domain for activity. When we have been fooled into thinking we are in a position to direct others, for good or ill, we err - and create much of the damage in the world that otherwise causes us dismay.
The tweet does encapsulate one strong form of bias. The "rant" is not directed at either the atomic sentiment in the tweet, nor at its sender.
Rather, this 140 character straw-man became a catalyst for specific arguments against basic assumptions about the nature of "rational intellect" and "science", with regards to their place as a measure for conducting human societies.
scientists apparently will find evidence for almost anything to pay their bills when they are funded by political, ideological and industrial special interests.
Ethics, though distortable, disputable and subject to sophistry, is remarkably constant through world cultures and exhibited in the fundamental ethos of their spiritual systems.
You completely mis-read what I am saying. You actually combine two of the three separate observations I make, to produce an imagined assertion which I do not propose.
So I argue, it is better to organize society on ETHICAL principals, that may even be fictitious, so that the assumptions about abstract collections are ETHICAL - versus a society constructed on RATIONAL principals, where assumptions about collections of individuals can be rationalized in a counter-ethical, pseudo- pragmatism.
Huxley includes them to illustrate in his parable, the lengths to which a "rational" society can go, towards de-humanization.
Do not think for a minute, that the mere technical removal of a need for menial and hazardous labor will result in a utopia. Without reform of the entire human scope of people - not just their rational component - technology becomes simply a means to more ruthlessly pursue de-humanization, while giving it further "rational" justification.
"Survival of the fittest" is a pure hogwash statement, redolent of bias and assumption, a priori.
The notion was presented to Darwin, who never fully endorses the implicit "zero-sum" application, through the ideological writing of Thomas Malthus, prior to Darwin beginning drafts for "The Origin of Species".
"Social Darwinism" pre-existed Darwin's detailed Galapagos study - based on crude assertions that are alternatively expressed as "might makes right" or "manifest destiny", etc.
The publication of Darwin's "Origin" gave the social engineers of the mid-19th century a basis to make claims of scientific basis for their elitist apologies. Having first asserted these for Darwin's consumption, this is almost a classic case-study of "confirmation bias".
It should be fairly evident, without great detail of argumant, that the most successful of all adaptations in species occur through various forms of interdependency, collaboration and symbiosis. The functioning of mammalian digestive, endocrine and immune systems are primary examples.
Like all bias, establishing frame-of-reference is everything. To assume the "survival of the fittest" reference in society is to adopt advocacy for the ethos of a cancer cell.
Slashdot Mirror
Reversi.
Rename it "Recursi"
The macroscopic world has ample unsolved things as well, such as inflation and dark energy.
The list of unsolvables is a series of manifold infinities: Kardashians. Torque versus RPM in Japanese automobiles. The third-knob under your office chair.
Win 10 grinds physical platters into 20-grit.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=windows+10+100%25+disk+utilization
You act as if the society projected were a thin-in-itself, not a superficial construct, with enough consistency to illustrate Huxley's larger points.
If you want to build a relatively complete socio-econmic and cultural model based on the information in Brave New World, you'd likely discover it has as many unworkable assumptions as Westeros!
The object is not to view a hypothetical future society. It is how to understand the nature of our own beings, within the regimentation of our own. It is a critique of the technocrat, who worships Henry Ford, to the exclusion the capacity for John Milton.
It also can be understood better, by being familiar with HG Wells utopian fantasies - who Huxley is indirectly critiquing and satirizing. He sees the outcome of the Well's socialist utopias as being deterministic, machine societies. You know, like one may extrapolate from Tyson!
I really like this response. Thanks.
I've been disoriented a decade or so, it's true.
Lemmy and Bowie snapped me to attention.
Crap, then. Win 10 and it's services are awful. Really, a giant leap backwards.
This is what happens, when you measure progress as the output of feature teams.
Well, He was only really using 1 or 2 of them, lately. Not even touching the one I'm from, despite being first documented in only 1964.
Less than eye-blink, cosmically speaking.
Bellamy's book. I know the reputation - but never read it, myself.
LINK: https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-pain-you-feel-is-capitalism-dying-5cdbe06a936c#.6dgklsj9c
I will simply leave this as a counter, to your claim of the 'health" of Capitalism.
You needn't agree agree with the entirety of the conceit, nor endorse the conclusion. it's enough to acknowledge several of the salient points made - regarding them as largely factual.
Then make extraordinary definitions of the term "health". LOL
Look, you started the pissing.
I reference an established work and you became antagonistic, with unfounded assertions.
I'm in my rights to put you in your place, junior.
You get the current academic system of research grants, where funded evidence is produced and the peer-review system is skewed by endowments for tenure, etc.
Good societies produce valid science.
Valid science can't produce good societies!
Untrue.
You entirely misrepresent that work, which I really haven't the patience to refute.
If we do assume you to be making a case that is substantiated by fact, "Devils" is a work made 20 years later than BNW. It is quite possible for a man to have a rational critique of economic and ethics at the peak of his academic and intellectual powers, and later have them either degrade from subsequent emotional or mental conditions - or otherwise simply to have them inconsistent by application to another domain.
You suffer from juvenile "know-it-all-ism", where the body of a life's work all have equivalency, and represent fixed values, with regard ti those who produced them. This is the real shame of the decline of actual, classically liberal education - replaced by Wikipedia factoids and the certainties of prevailing doctrine.
I don't believe you have actually given Huxley or his body of work any considered thought at all. Much less the same due to the entire discipline of philosophy and science to which he made his critique. Rather, you have grabbed onto which statements and observations of others, as they appealed to your disposition, having seemed to you "factual".
Of course, I may be in error. But my experience is much greater than yours, I am pretty certain.
Ultimately, each of us is tasked with the core ethical proposition: to become better and more human in ourselves and in our intentions towards others.
This is our equipment and our domain for activity. When we have been fooled into thinking we are in a position to direct others, for good or ill, we err - and create much of the damage in the world that otherwise causes us dismay.
Yes. You are right, in one sense.
The tweet does encapsulate one strong form of bias. The "rant" is not directed at either the atomic sentiment in the tweet, nor at its sender.
Rather, this 140 character straw-man became a catalyst for specific arguments against basic assumptions about the nature of "rational intellect" and "science", with regards to their place as a measure for conducting human societies.
This is a discussion forum, is it not?
scientists apparently will find evidence for almost anything to pay their bills when they are funded by political, ideological and industrial special interests.
Mod parent UP!
Ethics, though distortable, disputable and subject to sophistry, is remarkably constant through world cultures and exhibited in the fundamental ethos of their spiritual systems.
It's often called "the golden rule".
You completely mis-read what I am saying. You actually combine two of the three separate observations I make, to produce an imagined assertion which I do not propose.
So I argue, it is better to organize society on ETHICAL principals, that may even be fictitious, so that the assumptions about abstract collections are ETHICAL - versus a society constructed on RATIONAL principals, where assumptions about collections of individuals can be rationalized in a counter-ethical, pseudo- pragmatism.
MOD PARENT UP
And shorter, "yes".
Racist bullshit. :-)
I agree. We are together, acknowledging his prescriptive failure - not his diagnostic.
Huxley includes them to illustrate in his parable, the lengths to which a "rational" society can go, towards de-humanization.
Do not think for a minute, that the mere technical removal of a need for menial and hazardous labor will result in a utopia. Without reform of the entire human scope of people - not just their rational component - technology becomes simply a means to more ruthlessly pursue de-humanization, while giving it further "rational" justification.
"Survival of the fittest" is a pure hogwash statement, redolent of bias and assumption, a priori.
The notion was presented to Darwin, who never fully endorses the implicit "zero-sum" application, through the ideological writing of Thomas Malthus, prior to Darwin beginning drafts for "The Origin of Species".
"Social Darwinism" pre-existed Darwin's detailed Galapagos study - based on crude assertions that are alternatively expressed as "might makes right" or "manifest destiny", etc.
The publication of Darwin's "Origin" gave the social engineers of the mid-19th century a basis to make claims of scientific basis for their elitist apologies. Having first asserted these for Darwin's consumption, this is almost a classic case-study of "confirmation bias".
It should be fairly evident, without great detail of argumant, that the most successful of all adaptations in species occur through various forms of interdependency, collaboration and symbiosis. The functioning of mammalian digestive, endocrine and immune systems are primary examples.
Like all bias, establishing frame-of-reference is everything. To assume the "survival of the fittest" reference in society is to adopt advocacy for the ethos of a cancer cell.