6 ms·

We're beyond what he imagined in technology and material possibilities, but not even close to other more human values. The fact that we are both using this ama

We're beyond what he imagined in technology and material possibilities, but not even close to other more human values. The fact that we are both using this amazing technology of "light speed" information exchange to engage in these discussions fully knowing that most likely nothing will change on the other end, should tell you something about how far we've really come.

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
First of all, I am believer that language was not invented for communication, dogs and bees communicate very well with each other and don't speak one word, but that language was invented to speak with and to one's own self. No source for this, just a belief: I first of all speak to clarify thoughts for myself, hence expecting for communication to "update the software" of the other person just seems misguided. Secondly, we are what we make of ourselves, nothing more, nothing less. We are a "land of laws" or a race to the bottom. José Saramago's fiction "Essay on Lucidity" and "Essay on Blindness" puts it in counterbalance more poetically and at length. Thirdly, technologically, we still haven't moved one inch towards the tools for wisdom. What do we have now? Books of ancient elders, books of contemporary charismatic thought-leaders, books of law, "words, words, words", as the Danish prince would put it. How about, as dystopian or utopian that might sound, reinforce "do not kill" not with a stone tablet and the fear of consequences, but with a pill. Robert Sapolski [1] comes to mind: how barbaric we will look like for locking a murderer in a cell instead of fixing whatever neuronal pathway goes haywire. Nevertheless, this future will come, maybe not in the next 100 years, who knows, but that's why it is important for there to be a we, the people, collectively sorting things out, choosing our own local and global state, and not a them, the rulers, whomever them are, political leaders, religious figures, charismatic entertainers. [1] Neuroscience and the Law, https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=ustjlpp https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&con...
- yadingus 3y ago
  The first paragraph, although an interesting theory, is odd and almost self contradictory. If you don't expect anything to come out of interaction, why not just type your responses into an offline journal for yourself and keep it at that? I do this often for my future self and highly recommend it. But if I interact with others I try to be honest with my intentions. I can't say I disagree with the rest of your comment but i barely see the relevance to the topic of Nietzsche and how you seemed misguided in confusing his vision of the future with our current technological advances.

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago

First of all, I am believer that language was not invented for communication, dogs and bees communicate very well with each other and don't speak one word, but that language was invented to speak with and to one's own self. No source for this, just a belief: I first of all speak to clarify thoughts for myself, hence expecting for communication to "update the software" of the other person just seems misguided. Secondly, we are what we make of ourselves, nothing more, nothing less. We are a "land of laws" or a race to the bottom. José Saramago's fiction "Essay on Lucidity" and "Essay on Blindness" puts it in counterbalance more poetically and at length. Thirdly, technologically, we still haven't moved one inch towards the tools for wisdom. What do we have now? Books of ancient elders, books of contemporary charismatic thought-leaders, books of law, "words, words, words", as the Danish prince would put it. How about, as dystopian or utopian that might sound, reinforce "do not kill" not with a stone tablet and the fear of consequences, but with a pill. Robert Sapolski [1] comes to mind: how barbaric we will look like for locking a murderer in a cell instead of fixing whatever neuronal pathway goes haywire. Nevertheless, this future will come, maybe not in the next 100 years, who knows, but that's why it is important for there to be a we, the people, collectively sorting things out, choosing our own local and global state, and not a them, the rulers, whomever them are, political leaders, religious figures, charismatic entertainers. [1] Neuroscience and the Law, https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=ustjlpp https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&con...

yadingus 3y ago
The first paragraph, although an interesting theory, is odd and almost self contradictory. If you don't expect anything to come out of interaction, why not just type your responses into an offline journal for yourself and keep it at that? I do this often for my future self and highly recommend it. But if I interact with others I try to be honest with my intentions. I can't say I disagree with the rest of your comment but i barely see the relevance to the topic of Nietzsche and how you seemed misguided in confusing his vision of the future with our current technological advances.