From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 05:21:30 MDT
Today I' m going to bring up a fellow from Ancient Greece that should be discussed more: Aristotle.
In the classical, Socratic tradition philosophy is a seeking of the right goals for both the lives of men and of governments.
Both Plato and Aristotle think that this is the purpose of philosophy. It means that social sciences and political philosophy are closely related to ethics.
The aristotelian philosophy is an ethics of purposes, that says us that there is a goal that every human being wants, or should want to achieve.
The task of the philosopher is thus to identify this goal, and find the best possible means to achieve it.
For a scholary philosopher of today, the aristotelian ethics might seem primitive, or at least foreign.
Modern philosophy is quite often about problematizing the values and the concepts that are the foundation of the aristotelian thinking.
Yep, I can read Wittgenstein, but the aristotelian view gives an important question that I think is quite relevant to transhumanism.
The question is- what does it mean to "live a good life", and how should I act if I wish to achieve it. The question emphazises the possiblities of philosophy to act as a guide to life.
The objective knowledge, not confusion.
So what is the this highest good i the ethics we are discussing?
Aristotle answers "eudaimonia". I think that the term is translated into "happiness" in English, which isn't the same as pure lust or joy.
A state of eudaimonia is also closely knit to ACTION, more specifically the kind of action that enables man to accomplish his nature.
What nature?
The specifically human, that distinguishes us from the animals, is the faculty of reason. To achieve eudaimonia is thus to achieve a harmonical fullfilling of the faculty of reason.
The link between happiness and action can be expressed as happiness in an active life in accordance to virtue.
Virtue are the habits that make men able to accomplish certain deeds, because become just by acting justly, courageous by acting courageously.
Morality (and philosophy) is to give a guide for real life.
As you can see, there are som differences between a platonic and aristotelian view.
And thus it is important to see that an enmeshing of Plato into the transhumanist tradition will only damage it. These are very important things.
Someone might ask "excuse me, isn't the concepts of eudaimonia etc, already present in a way in transhumanism already?". I would say: yes indeed there are parallells, since transhumanism has its roots back to aristotelianism, especially since aristotelianism focuses on this physical world instead of a "land of ideas".
Transhumanists are the champions of this world. Aristotle is not only important just because he spoke about Artifical Intelligence more than 2. 000 years ago (the "automathon" that would enable the emancipation of all slaves, since they would do the work), but because he presented a morality and a political theory that started up a good line of thinking that takes us to the transhumanist political project.
I also think that the thomist tradition of alter years (for instance Douglas Rasmussen' s and Douglas Den Uyl' s works) is important.
That is why I think that liberalism is important, as a meta- ideology, as a frame in which transhumanism can act since it bring on a society where people are given the possibility and the freedom to use their faculty of reason.
In that society transhumanism is protected, given the possibility to develop itself, while not enforcing itself on someone.
True insight cannot be discovered without commitment on part of the individual.
Human growth is not an abstract, it touches so many areas of human life.
That is why it is necessary to have a deeper vision, because it is the responsible thing to do.
Self- improvement, freedom, new opportunities and progress are ideals which may still arouse the imaginations of larger numbers, but a mere "reasonable freedom of self- improvement" (according to whose definition, by the way?) or a mere "relaxation of controls", or a "betterment" without defining what is "better" is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.
Mind you, just discussing that "you shouldn't ban cloning" is too narrow in scope.
The transhumanist project is much vaster.
It is a project both for individuals' life and for societies.
The main lesson which the ideologically conscious transhumanist must learn form the successes of the 19th century liberals, and the 20th century socialists is that it was their courage to be visionary which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote.
Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.
Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a transhumanist society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of dynamism are indeed dark.
But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of transhumanism at its best, the battle is not lost. It can be turned into victory.
The intellectual revival of transhumanism must start.
Will it be in time?
I think it is still in time, especially if we add Aristotle to our discourse.
Sincerely,
Waldemar Ingdahl
Towards Eudaimonia!
"Politics is all about fighting.
A mouse can roar, but it only sounds like squeaking to a cat! A cat can roar, but it only sounds like meowing to a lion. The ultimate goal is to become a lion."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:16 MST