From: Mark Walker (tap@cgocable.net)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 16:08:57 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Waldemar Inghdahl <waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se>
> It is a tragic irony of our times that the two worst, bloodiest regimes in
history, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Soviet Russia, both of
whom were motivated by brute power- lust and a crudely materialistic greed
for the unearned, showed respect for the power of philosophy and spent
billions of propaganda and indoctrination. Today, when looking back we are
appalled. Their ideas were so openly morally debased and unpractical, they
were nuts! But even so millions followed and died for those ideas. In the US
and other Western countries who claim to believe in the superiority of the
human spirit over matter, you often find that its citizens neglect
philosophy, despise ideas, starve the best minds of the young, offer nothing
but the stalest slogans of cyncial pragmatism, and wonder why they are
losing the world to the thugs.
>
> The real enemy of transhumanism isn't Jeremy Rifkin, it isn't a specific
ideology, nor an entity but a vacuum, an absence, the emptiness left by the
collapse of philosophy.
>>
>>
>>
I find a certain irony in your call for a renewal of philosophy yet your
posts seem to lack the careful analysis that is the hallmark of the great
philosophers from Plato to Kant. For a start, what do you mean by
'philosophy'? When you say that socialists and Nazis "showed respect for the
power of philosophy" you cannot mean respect for the great tradition of
philosophy started by Plato. Presumably you mean something like an
individual or a group's core beliefs and values, e.g., when tv commentator's
refer to a football coach's philosophy they usually are not speaking about
his view on the mind/body problem but rather (say) the value he places on
the running game. So let me put this to you in the form of a dilemma: If you
mean 'philosophy' in the sense of the project that Plato, Kant, and Dewey
were pursuing, why should we believe that this project is necessary or
desirable for transhumanism? If you mean 'philosophy' in the sense of a
common core of values and beliefs why should we think this is necessary or
desirable for transhumanism? Why can't we disagree about politics, morality,
religion, etc., and yet work together when it suits our purposes? After all,
scientists disagree about such matters but find ways to work together. (I
myself believe that the great tradition of philosophy does have something to
say about transhumanism, but I think this claim needs to be argued not
merely asserted).
I also wonder about your use of the word 'transhumanism'. Specifically,
you say that,
>
> For transhumanism it wouldn't be a problem if MIT tomorrow published the
fact that there are unsurmountable problems in applying nanotechnology,
because transhumanism spans over further areas than just technology. It is a
distinct philosophy with a view of the world, a theory of knowledge, a moral
system and a political theory. We are talking about a dynamist approach to
technology, humanity, and society. Not of specific technologies.
>
Also there was your provocative statement from the other day that
transhumanism has nothing to do with genetic engineering, nano, or AI.
Perhaps you could say a bit more about how you understand
'transhumanism'--after all, it is used in different ways by different
people. If your point is that a positive attitude towards technology is not
a sufficient condition for the term 'transhumanism', then I agree. But there
is still the question of whether it is a necessary condition. Some of your
remarks suggest that you think the technological question is irrelevant.
(Transhumanism, as I understand it is the thesis that that we (1) ought to
(2) employ technology for (3) the purpose of attempting to perfect our
natures. Technology, I believe is a necessary ingredient of transhumanism.
Plato, for example, would agree with the moral claim of (1) and the
teleological claim of (3), where he would differ is on (2). He advises us to
pursue a philosophical education to achieve (3). )
In short, how about a little less sound a fury, and a little more
signifying something? Mark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:10 MST