3 ms·

And what, exactly, is the best that we know? Looking at your top-level answer, without wanting to be unduly argumentative, it's certainly reasonable to argue t

And what, exactly, is the best that we know? Looking at your top-level answer, without wanting to be unduly argumentative, it's certainly reasonable to argue that the classics and the Bible have -- more than most other "knowledge" -- to date failed to save us from ourselves. They've been around thousands of years, and we still have massive poverty, greed, inequality, injustice, war, exploitation of natural resources at the expense of public health, etc. etc.

joeclark77 12y ago
Inanimate objects cannot "save us from ourselves" but can only provide the equipment for us to use, if we choose to use it. Do you suggest that our descendants will be better off with no knowledge of virtue, philosophy, or justice? Are you then one of those Utopians who thinks that human nature is perfect, but "society" is corrupt and to blame for all the problems? On the contrary, it is human nature itself (at least since we were kicked out of Eden) which is fallen, greedy, unjust, etc. You cannot solve mankind's problems by burning the libraries. Instead, we must look into the libraries for wisdom that may help us. For example, Federalist 51: It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Please try to avoid obnoxious tactical argument stuff like Ah, I see now. You are one of those. They are tiresome.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    Fair point. I have changed it.
- gregcohn 12y ago
  I believe society is a reflection of human nature. Setting aside your utopian strawman, if your argument is going to based on historical timelines starting with when "we were kicked out of Eden", I suspect we're not going to find much common ground on history, philosophy, or morals anyway. The original question was, what should we leave behind to future. I think ultimately it's a great question, and a great debate. Let's agree to disagree on our approaches to it.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    It is not a straw man. You argue that we can transmit nothing (at least nothing in the way of knowledge of truth) to the future generations who will rebuild civilization after some sort of disaster. You base this claim on an argument that civilization is genetically flawed: all of our philosophy and knowledge (with the corollary that no part can be separated from the whole) is in your view either (a) the cause of our downfall or (b) useless in preventing it. If (a) then you are a Utopian who believes that evil is to be blamed on history or society and not men themselves. If (b) then it seems you are a fatalist who believes that there is no hope for the hypothetical survivors anyway. I don't think (b) is the case because you now mention that you have an "approach" to the problem. It is clear that we disagree on our "approaches", but what is your approach? If you believe (a), then it seems the wisest approach would be to try to keep the surviving children untainted by words or thoughts from adults who remember the cataclysm, in hopes that the new generation will start from scratch. Am I wrong?
    - gregcohn 12y ago
      The only point I am making is not, as you assume, that all of our philosophy and knowledge is useless, nor that no part can be separated from the whole. My point is that we don't know which part is useful and which part isn't, and to presume otherwise -- ie to believe that we can effectively, if you will, "play God" with some future society after we've blown this one up -- is hubris (not to mention likely contraindicated in the Bible somewhere).

joeclark77 12y ago

Inanimate objects cannot "save us from ourselves" but can only provide the equipment for us to use, if we choose to use it. Do you suggest that our descendants will be better off with no knowledge of virtue, philosophy, or justice? Are you then one of those Utopians who thinks that human nature is perfect, but "society" is corrupt and to blame for all the problems? On the contrary, it is human nature itself (at least since we were kicked out of Eden) which is fallen, greedy, unjust, etc. You cannot solve mankind's problems by burning the libraries. Instead, we must look into the libraries for wisdom that may help us. For example, Federalist 51: It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

maxerickson 12y ago
Please try to avoid obnoxious tactical argument stuff like Ah, I see now. You are one of those. They are tiresome.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Fair point. I have changed it.
gregcohn 12y ago
I believe society is a reflection of human nature. Setting aside your utopian strawman, if your argument is going to based on historical timelines starting with when "we were kicked out of Eden", I suspect we're not going to find much common ground on history, philosophy, or morals anyway. The original question was, what should we leave behind to future. I think ultimately it's a great question, and a great debate. Let's agree to disagree on our approaches to it.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  It is not a straw man. You argue that we can transmit nothing (at least nothing in the way of knowledge of truth) to the future generations who will rebuild civilization after some sort of disaster. You base this claim on an argument that civilization is genetically flawed: all of our philosophy and knowledge (with the corollary that no part can be separated from the whole) is in your view either (a) the cause of our downfall or (b) useless in preventing it. If (a) then you are a Utopian who believes that evil is to be blamed on history or society and not men themselves. If (b) then it seems you are a fatalist who believes that there is no hope for the hypothetical survivors anyway. I don't think (b) is the case because you now mention that you have an "approach" to the problem. It is clear that we disagree on our "approaches", but what is your approach? If you believe (a), then it seems the wisest approach would be to try to keep the surviving children untainted by words or thoughts from adults who remember the cataclysm, in hopes that the new generation will start from scratch. Am I wrong?
  - gregcohn 12y ago
    The only point I am making is not, as you assume, that all of our philosophy and knowledge is useless, nor that no part can be separated from the whole. My point is that we don't know which part is useful and which part isn't, and to presume otherwise -- ie to believe that we can effectively, if you will, "play God" with some future society after we've blown this one up -- is hubris (not to mention likely contraindicated in the Bible somewhere).