h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cut the crap about atheists being self-serving.

Who else is there to serve?

~jwf~

Love of nature and the human family.

What/Who else is there to serve?

>> Love of nature and the human family. <<


Indeed yes. But all pleasure is a form of pleasant self awareness.

We say or think, "My family, my friends, give me pleasure."
Or, "That sunset pleases ME."
Or, "That monkey amuses me."

And even when experience is not pleasant we can take the most remote events on a personal level.
"Those terrorists are really starting to piss ME off."

My understanding of existentialism is:
The existentialist begins by rejecting everything; god, purpose, ritual...
But then has to rationalise continued existence as 'existentialism' or the salvaging of whatever pleasure or purposes life has to offer.
And eventually one realises that all experience is subjective. That is to say, the interpretation of reality becomes wholey centered upon the self which perceives or experiences it.
"That monkey really does amuse me."
"But if he throws his feces at me again, god help him."


~jwf~

I dabbled a bit with old Satre in my youth, but I wouldn't ever label myself as an existentionalist; I'm far too hot and bothered as a person. (We really need Edwardo around for this discussion. Where the cluck is he?)

>Indeed yes. But all pleasure is a form of pleasant self awareness.

We say or think, "My family, my friends, give me pleasure."
Or, "That sunset pleases ME."
Or, "That monkey amuses me."
<

See I would say and think, "I love X", not anything so self serving as "X gives me pleasure."

The former always involves making yourself vulnerable and taking risk. I'm a bit of a risk addict Much good has it done me though. The latter smacks of control.

Hi jwf,

If you insist on thinking in strictly Darwinian terms, you should remember that it is the genes that survive, not the individual - and all our close family share a lot of our genes. As JBS Haldane put it: 'I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.'

And, of course, the human species being as genetically montonous as it is, we are all brothers under the skin. We all ought to be prepared to lay down our lives for half a dozen or so complete strangers.

More generally, evolution has given us the capacity to love. Our genes don't do the maths - they just say we should look out for each other. Such behaviour in human animals ensures the optimum survival of the human genes that influence it. We are group animals, and we live or die as a group.

But if we're prepared to look at the emergent level - who really cares whether our feelings and emotions come from evolution? Is a mother who dashes into a burning building to save her child calculating risk odds? Or is she acting on her own emotions, equally noble wherever they came from?

Gif

Ed's working somewhere away from home, won't have time for hootoo for a while.

I consider myself an existentialist but I don't see it as an "world relates to me and me alone" sort of thing, it's more of a "how do I relate, how do I respond to the world?" sort of idea.

I basically see it as a way of choosing how to deal with the world: something is only bad if I respond to it in a bad way. I'd say that Kipling with If is as much an inspiration as Sartre with Nausea.

"The congregation at a Calgary Catholic church is hoping for the safe return of a Virgin Mary statue that stands 1.5 metres tall."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/08/10/calgary-church-stolen-mary-statue.html

Perhaps she's gone walkabout





Hey, if Mary statues cry and bleed, why not perambulate...

<"That monkey really does amuse me."
"But if he throws his feces at me again, god help him."
>

You really should spank that monkey. Only if it pleases you, of course,

Thank you. No, please, THANK you.

On a related topic:
It appears Edwardo the bonobo is off to some forrin land like
Sweden or sumsuch 'on business'. His absence has been noticed
by others.

It might then be a good time to mention a recently proposed
theory that man is more likely descended from orangutans than
chimps. It seems this theory is based on skull and eye socket
comparisons of modern and ancient examples. The clincher is
that the orang is the only other primate capable of a genuine
smile.

Chimps can bare their teeth in a facsimile of a human smile but
this is probably just a case of monkey see, monkey do. My money's
on the orangs, but I may be prejudiced by Discworld immersion.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/humans-related-to-orangutans-not-chimps-or-gorillas-85322/

WARNING: That link (for me) featured an insidious Scientology advert which
was difficult to ignore without irritation.)


~jwf~

no no no no no no no!

You say ' a recently proposed theory that man is more likely descended from orangutans than chimps. '

no no no no no no no!

and also

no no no no no no no!

No one respectable (apart from you, ~jwf~, the epitome of respectability) has ever suggested that humans are descended from chimpanzees (or bonobos)


and also

the story to which you link, in its very first sentence says:

'In a new research, a team of scientists has suggested that humans most likely *share a common ancestor* with orangutans, not chimpanzees and gorillas.' (emphasis indignantly mine)


If I may explain:

I am not descended from my cousin the depressive Anglican priest, nor is that depressive Anglican Priest descended from me.

The depressive Anglican priest and I share a common ancestor, to wit, the fugue-prone, almost-shot-for-desertion veteran of Passchendaele.

All apes and humans share a common ancestor; none are descended from any other living bunch. Some of us share more recent common ancestors.

The depressive Anglican priest and I share a fugue-prone grandfather; the depressive Anglican priest and I share a rather vaguely imagined great-something-grand-something with that gay fellow who keeps sending genealogical emails to my mother.

The debate your link addresses is whether the evidence suggests that I share a grandfather with a depressive Anglican priest or with a gay fellow with an interest in genealogy.


Metaphorically speaking.

Dawkins on a a related topic showing the 'family' tree...we are up a different branch than orangie-tangs.

You say ' a recently proposed theory that man is more likely descended from orangutans than chimps. '

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4063,RDF-TV---Nebraska-Vignettes-2---Why-are-there-still-Chimpanzees,Richard-Dawkins-Josh-Timonen-Judy-Diamond-RDFRS

And something related.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4067,RDF-TV---Nebraska-Vignettes-3---Comparing-the-Human-and-Chimpanzee-Genomes,Richard-Dawkins-Josh-Timonen-Judy-Diamond-RDFRS

>> The congregation at a Calgary Catholic church is hoping for the safe return of a Virgin Mary statue <<

Surely they should be *praying* for its return? *Hoping* seems so, well, unreligious.

>> "Did we do something to offend you? Did the church do something to offend you? <<

Spoing! goes the irony meter!

RF

Since others have responded appropriately to the orang descent post, I'll make do with:

"It might then be a good time to mention a recently proposed
theory that man is more likely descended from orangutans than
chimps."

Well, maybe for gingers

A review of religion in the noughties will be on Panorama tonight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8190640.stm

Sister Wendy defends religious faith: 'God is just a word.'

Gif

oh but she has better quotes than that - like the one about aggressive secularists maliciously focusing on the imprisoning aspects of religion (erm, yeah, but they're there?)

or where she talks about the recent books arguing against religion saying
""written by people who know nothing of theology - poor lambs - I mean it's not their fault they're ignorant"."

Yeah, cos condescension is gonna really help. But then, she is preaching to the choir.

Presumably you mean Newsnight? as that's the link.

From the link I read with interest, with respect to Dawkins

...'One of those who backed the bus was the author of The God Delusion, Professor Richard Dawkins.
He told Newsnight he had had to wait until the turn of the century to write his book.
"My literary agent advised me against writing 'The God Delusion' in the late nineties - and then in the mid-noughties he said 'now you should write it'.

He goes onto mention the period of Dubya.

Sounds pretty political to me as a reason to write a book. If the message is a merely a neutral one about exposing the nature of the idea of religious belief and you are an immensely famous scientist with many well known titles already to your name, why wait until the time is just right? It's all bloody politics with that man.

(I've enjoyed Sister Wendy's programmes in the past about paintings).

"why wait until the time is just right? It's all bloody politics with that man."

Think you are confusing the motives of the writer and the publisher.

From that link and quote it is obvious Dawkins wanted to write the book earlier but that the publishers felt the time was not right and that they'd make more money off it in a different situation. That situation came about so they said go ahead and lo! They made money.

Ultimately of course it is political, just about any subject is.
But mainly in this case it was the publishers and it was about money.

Oh yeah poor lamb...at the mercy of the nasty publishers. No way he could have written it earlier being as famous as he was. If he had really wanted to publish that book earler of course he could. He has clout. It's the usual disingenuousness from Dawkins, like when he whines about lawyers in connection with his channel 4 programmes.

If people are going to jump on Sister Wendy, who I became very fond of after watching many of her excellent art programmes in the past, I'm going to do the same to Dawkins. His hands are as dirty as hell and yet he's always trying to pretend the message is a neutral one...and he's either being manipulated by lawyers...or now publishers

<- poor lambs - I mean it's not their fault they're ignorant">

SPOING