[quote]KvonBabbage wrote:
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
I expect Nietzsche felt much the same way as you did about the Ubermensch in it not being so much an obtainable perfected (dare I say) evolution. And I assure myself in the same time with the same knowledge and wisdom I too would feel that way. However with the advancements of technology and the incredible…
.[/quote]
Now this is interesting. How do you feel about genetic modification for people in the health sector or even in the food industry? Does this influence your view on drugs, in sport, out of sport etc.?
So you’re quite well read in philosophy. Considerably better then some of our student populace. I like Machiavelli, I think it’s an odd snap shot of a world that’s very different from the rest of Europe, both then and now. His morally outlook is pragmatic yet accessible. Machiavelli, for me, is better understood in the context of a fractured Italy rather than as a stand alone political philosopher. You looked in any Rorty? How did you come to pair the two, Foucault and Machiavelli, together?
Is that unusual in America? We have a sort of skewed view of religiousosity inthe American populace. The image of the American Bible-bashing nationalist, fundermentalists is something that is quite heavily suggested in the American ‘stereotype’ we see on this side of the pond. I imagine it is just as off as the stereotypical view of an Englishman as mild-mannered, tea drinking, tweed wearers with bad teeth. And that’s only half fair. We’ll never give up tea and only some of us have bad teeth.
For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist, maybe even a deist if pushed hard enough. I want to believe, i can’t think of anything more pleasing then an ideal god. However, I feel the reality is very far and different from the dream. Nonetheless. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water. My study of Qu’ran is limited, but not none existent. It’s very rule and list heavy. Even more so than the Old Testament. It doesn’t do much for me. I like the Gospel of Thomas. That’s the way I would want my God to be. Buddhism is somethng i could never get on with. i thought it would be spiritually enlightening, but I couldn’t find anything I liked in it. As to the others you mentioned, I’ve touched on them but outside of having read them, I can’t say I’ve ‘studied’ them as such.
So your interest is purely self educated? That’s quite impressive. [/quote]
Regarding genetic modification, my input is likely large enough to concern a new thread in and of itself, however to summarise, I expect it will follow in pursuit of a system not unlike food modification is doing now. That the hierarchy of wealth and power will serve to monopolize biological modification through artificial means firstly through the corporate mesh and filtering downwards ending with the consumer. Of course there would be changes and the system would not be identical, at least not in the birthing stages of such a revolutionary event, but we can expect some similarity in it’s planning. So to not go into detail, and to be blunt, I would look at it and interpret it somewhat comparatively with crop modification.
Regarding Machiavelli, I agree that Machiavelli’s “advice” holds truer in regard to Renaissance Italy than it may do in a modern societal setting, however I still feel it has something to offer, even if it is largely misinterpreted. I liken it to Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War and how it relates to modern militant strategy, tweaks need to be made to accommodate, but the fundamentals are left largely intact. So far I have not researched the musings of Rorty, but I shall when I find it fits the puzzle when I’m articulating a theory related to his ideas. Really the only real reason I had for comparing Foucault and Machiavelli was that I was in the middle of reading The Prince and had been told about who Foucault was. I realised they both had their basis in the science of political power, and so I saw two ingredients of the same colour and decided to throw them both into a beaker, to see what came of it.
I believe you mistake my Nationality, though I do not fault you. I am in fact English (I just reside in Spain), from Oxford to be precise, so I cannot comment on the overzealous view of the US’ cling to Christianity we predominantly have. Though I will say, I try my best to be polite and learned, I love green tea, and I have very bad teeth. So c’est la vie, my stereotypes do not yet elude me.
I like some of the ideology of Buddhism, and I in particular like that The Buddha does not force you to commit yourself to anything that does not jive with your personal judgement, I found that very generous of him as a religious icon.
Almost entirely self-educated. I once saw a child astrophysics prodigy make a speech about how every brilliant person with every great thought only came to their eureka moment through years and years of constant thought and examination, that they already held the flesh and bones to their ideas in their head, but needed the time and space to formulate a connection. (For example Darwin, Einstein, Tesla etc.) Since then I’ve taken it upon myself to learn how to think, in the hope that in my future I’ll have a similar faux revelation. If the odds are against me, I should not like to know.