sábado, 5 de diciembre de 2009

Naturalismo y nihilismo

Una respuesta colgada en este post, que trata sobre si el naturalismo lleva a nihilismo, reseñado por Robredo. (¿Como estás, Robre?). Por supuesto que el naturalismo (como llaman ahora al escepticismo cientifico) entendido en el sentido fuerte lleva al nihilismo (yo llamo al naturalismo fuerte "nihilismo apodíctico" o "ceguera cartesiana". Pero entendido como religión, es decir como adoración a los padres del credo sin detenerse mucho en sus consecuencias, no lleva al nihilismo, porque, como toda religion tiene un cuerpo de creencias que aisla del nihilismo. Ellos dicen que el naturalismo no lleva al nihilismo. Claro, su concepto de naturalismo es el segundo.

Leer el post original:


Mi respuesta:

You guys, the adepts to these new labels composed of a mix of terms "humanists" "naturalist" "secular" etc seems as if you adhere to science without entering in their hard facts. You mention darwinism without bother into extract their consequences. In fact you take evolution as a theory when in fact the theory is Natural Selection, that evoques far more distress than "evolution" that is a descriptive, not an explicative term, and, as such, is neither an explanation nor invoque any fact except itself. That is what you exactly want to debunk the idea of a creator. You seems to adopt to evolution but your penetration into the consequences of natural selection are shallow. You regret on creationists not accepting evolution, but in this article, Only a creationist mention hard facts of natural selection. A few years ago, Dawkins was an enemy of the politically correct left for his defense of neodarwinism, and most of you agree with non darwinist explanations of evolution such are the lewontin-Gould Dialectic evolution and others. Thinga have not changed too much except to admit in your naturalistic pantheon Darwin and its prophets, as personal authorities but without accepting the hard facts of the theory. It seems that the philosophy oriented naturalists as you practice a sort of sophistry mixed with cult to personality. If you are champions of science, I wonder why you do not enter in the hard, valueless facts and theories of natural selection to answer the only person here that has put in the table some facts of it, Tobias, a creationist. I regret my tone when I re-read this, but I need you to awake from your comfortable sophistry. Haught is rigth in the idea that you are soft core atheist. Camus or nietzche would have gone deep in the question if they had articulate theories of natural selection applied to humans at hand. You prefer to stay vague for your own sanity, but you do not agree with the high respect for science that you claim for yourselves in every first paragraph of every post when you argue such vague things like "moral is in our nature shaped by natural evolution" This is something that is not enough, and is not accurate. It´s not sicience. It´s not even philosophy. Period. In any case it is belief founded in interested interpretation of naturalistic scriptures of the fathers of xxxxx-naturalism, equally dishonests. You mix a personality cult with a set of candles in your virtual pantheon. the candles are phrases like the former about morality.

I´ll do the hard thing for you: What morality are you talking about? The morality of the founding fathers - all men are created equal? ... or...the morality of John Dillinger? (he never leaved their mates usupported. It was considered deeply moral by the members of his gang. Most of the conversatión in a mafia group is about moral issues: who was wrong on doing what, why is someone not worth confidence. Who needs a "lesson" to behave well next time, to demand friends to give back a favour by collaborating in the next bank assault etc.

Unfortunately for you, the moral that is deeply rooted in our human nature by natural-selection (NOT evolution) is the second, (not the "all men are created equal by evolution") and you know it in the deep. That´s the reason you don´t go deeper in the issue.

Our moral sense includes revenge, uncritical love for the tribal group, sectarianism, tribalism as such. It also includes friendship and fairness, but friendship can be in the context of helping a friend for the violation of a woman or planning anything else bad. Fairnes can be in the context of the distribution of a robbery lot. We have a strong innate sense of "we" and "others". We have envy deep in our nature. We self deceive about our moral virtues. We deceive other without even knowing it consiouslly. We reason with deep unconscious prejuices toward our own positions and interests. All of this does not become apparent if you don´t performa a nietzchian explotation on the implications of natural selection in a social, non clonal animal as we are. The exploration of NS theory in humans is so valueless that many especialist in NS like Dawkins, refuse to do. Alternatively, they answer that we "can choose" Really? Do we have self determination beyond naturalistic causes? good It´s good to know that you believe in men as more than natural things . You have your religion, and is respectable. But, please, if so, please leave others denominations live their lifes. And, please, stop calling yourselves naturalists and science champions.

If instead you want to live your preach, I recommend you to read something about evolutionary psychology, multilevel evolution, specially something about sloan wilson and Richard E. Michod, you will start to glimpse that cultural evolution is nothing but an integral part of the natural evolution, that natural selection is the theory that explains both and that the great religions are definitively a key in our depart from, and continuous keeping away from the small nepotistic alien psychopathic groups where we evolved as hominids and inherited our natural moral sense.

I recommend also to deeply understand the prisoner paradox, in game theory. You will know that belief beyond proof in some key assumptions is a condition sine qua not for the collaboration between selfish beings.

4 comentarios:

irichc dijo...

Bien argumentado. Nietzsche escribió:

«Originariamente –decretan– acciones no egoístas fueron alabadas y llamadas buenas por aquellos a quienes resultaban útiles; más tarde ese origen de la alabanza se olvidó, y las acciones no egoístas, por el simple motivo de que, de acuerdo con el hábito, habían sido alabadas siempre como buenas, fueron sentidas también como buenas –como si fueran en sí algo bueno.» Se ve enseguida que esta derivación contiene ya todos los rasgos típicos de la idiosincrasia de los psicólogos ingleses, –tenemos aquí «la utilidad», «el olvido», «el hábito» y, al final, «el error», todo ello como base de una apreciación valorativa.

Y en esas estamos.

Saludos.

Memetic Warrior dijo...

Bien traído.

Stuart dijo...
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
Stuart dijo...

Aunque en un principio no compartia del todo tu punto de vista, debo decir que me hiciste cambiar de opinion, pues los argumentos que utilizaste son bastante validos.
Por cierto amigo tu sabes como eliminar esos mensajes masivos de buy viagra , he tratado de muchas maneras pero aun no he podido.