3 ms·

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 wit

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

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).