Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[impermanence]

Thinking appears to be a woefully inadequate method to rely on in navigating our way through life. As well, high marks in utility does not save thinking from its failure to assist us in capturing Reality in any significant way, leaving us unsatisfied or worse [intellectually and emotionally convoluted]. Yet there are few attributes more revered than one's ability to "think well" [whatever that means].

Highly intelligent folks [well-represented in the audience reading these words] seem to take great pride in their natural ability to process more quickly or at a more advanced level, but the old adage, garbage-in/garbage-out still applies regardless of speed/efficiency of the resulting refuse.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order for man to drag his boulder a bit further up the hill, perhaps he should take a break from attempting to out-smart Nature and join the rest of the species on the planet that seem content with eking out an existence taking what is given instead of always fighting against what it is with his incessant/compulsive need to "make things better."

After all, things are as good as it gets [each and every moment], always have been, always will be...

[Steve3007]

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order for man to drag his boulder a bit further up the hill, perhaps he should take a break from attempting to out-smart Nature and join the rest of the species on the planet that seem content with eking out an existence taking what is given instead of always fighting against what it is with his incessant/compulsive need to "make things better."

The notion of the contentedness of other species with their place in life, in contrast with the troubled over-thinking humans, is pervasive, and therefore interesting. It surfaces in numerous places. The Romantic movement in art and literature, particularly as a reaction against the industrial revolution, was one.

Life for most other species, and for most humans in pre-industrial conditions, is a perpetual fear-driven struggle against hunger and predation. Human children survived into adulthood much more successfully than most species, yet still about half died before reaching adulthood, and the death of a child for parents in pre-industrial times was no less painful than it is now. Whereas life for most people in the modern world is characterised by abundant food, no predators and healthcare which has reduced infant mortality to less than 1%.

But given that the vast majority of human history - the formative years of our mental evolution - were spent in that state, I guess it's not surprising that there is always something in us that longs for it because of the deep feeling that it is in some sense more natural, and therefore more fitting, than the industrialised, safe, small-cog-in-a-big-societal-machine lives that most of us live now.

But that's what camping holidays are for. Just enough temporary discomfort and hardship to make us appreciate the benefits of society.

[evolution]

Thinking appears to be a woefully inadequate method to rely on in navigating our way through life. As well, high marks in utility does not save thinking from its failure to assist us in capturing Reality in any significant way, leaving us unsatisfied or worse [intellectually and emotionally convoluted]. Yet there are few attributes more revered than one's ability to "think well" [whatever that means].

Highly intelligent folks [well-represented in the audience reading these words] seem to take great pride in their natural ability to process more quickly or at a more advanced level, but the old adage, garbage-in/garbage-out still applies regardless of speed/efficiency of the resulting refuse.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order for man to drag his boulder a bit further up the hill, perhaps he should take a break from attempting to out-smart Nature and join the rest of the species on the planet that seem content with eking out an existence taking what is given instead of always fighting against what it is with his incessant/compulsive need to "make things better."

After all, things are as good as it gets [each and every moment], always have been, always will be...

But 'taking' what is 'given' could be seen as one of the biggest reason for human beings downfall.

Also, what is wrong with 'making 'things' better'? Obviously if 'things' are getting 'better', then they are not getting 'worse'.

[LuckyR]

Thinking appears to be a woefully inadequate method to rely on in navigating our way through life. As well, high marks in utility does not save thinking from its failure to assist us in capturing Reality in any significant way, leaving us unsatisfied or worse [intellectually and emotionally convoluted]. Yet there are few attributes more revered than one's ability to "think well" [whatever that means].

Highly intelligent folks [well-represented in the audience reading these words] seem to take great pride in their natural ability to process more quickly or at a more advanced level, but the old adage, garbage-in/garbage-out still applies regardless of speed/efficiency of the resulting refuse.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order for man to drag his boulder a bit further up the hill, perhaps he should take a break from attempting to out-smart Nature and join the rest of the species on the planet that seem content with eking out an existence taking what is given instead of always fighting against what it is with his incessant/compulsive need to "make things better."

After all, things are as good as it gets [each and every moment], always have been, always will be...

As opposed to what?

[Steve3007]

As opposed to what?

I suspect the answer would be something like: thinking in a rational, problem-solving way as opposed to experiencing life in a more direct, emotional, visceral way. Obviously they're both thinking in the sense that they both happen in the brain. But I think we all know that in everyday speech that second kind of thinking is often characterised as happening in organs other than the brain. Sometimes the heart. Sometimes the gut (the viscera). Sometimes other organs.

Interesting that it's only a particular type of thinking that is commonly associated with the brain; generally the type that is least directly associated with physiological reactions and actions.

[LuckyR]

As opposed to what?

I suspect the answer would be something like: thinking in a rational, problem-solving way as opposed to experiencing life in a more direct, emotional, visceral way. Obviously they're both thinking in the sense that they both happen in the brain. But I think we all know that in everyday speech that second kind of thinking is often characterised as happening in organs other than the brain. Sometimes the heart. Sometimes the gut (the viscera). Sometimes other organs.

Interesting that it's only a particular type of thinking that is commonly associated with the brain; generally the type that is least directly associated with physiological reactions and actions.

I totally get what you're describing but wanted to get it from the horse's mouth as it were. Funny, due to human powers of pattern matching, often gut reactions (based on subconscious observations) are more accurate than intentional analysis.

[Steve3007]

Funny, due to human powers of pattern matching, often gut reactions (based on subconscious observations) are more accurate than intentional analysis.

Yes, I suppose that's why there are stories of great insights being made after people have stopped thinking explicitly about the problem and, perhaps, gone off to have a nice hot bath!

[LuckyR]

Funny, due to human powers of pattern matching, often gut reactions (based on subconscious observations) are more accurate than intentional analysis.

Yes, I suppose that's why there are stories of great insights being made after people have stopped thinking explicitly about the problem and, perhaps, gone off to have a nice hot bath!

Yes, another is when the hairs on your arm stand up when you pass a guy on the street, who turns out (you find out later) to be a creep.

[Pattern-chaser]

Funny, due to human powers of pattern matching, often gut reactions (based on subconscious observations) are more accurate than intentional analysis.

Yes, I suppose that's why there are stories of great insights being made after people have stopped thinking explicitly about the problem and, perhaps, gone off to have a nice hot bath!

When I had a difficult problem to solve at work, my boss would sometimes tell me to "go home and have a shower". This was not for reasons of personal hygiene, but only reflective of the solutions I found in the past, while showering. The unconscious mind only needs an opportunity to work:

"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree..."

Just make sure you are not going to be interrupted by "a person from Porlock"!

[Sy Borg]

The OP calls to mind the "noble savage" trope. Nature is brutal and harsh. There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.

Humans will continue to "make things better" for an ever shrinking minority, as they have always done.

[Sculptor1]

The OP calls to mind the "noble savage" trope. Nature is brutal and harsh. There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.

Humans will continue to "make things better" for an ever shrinking minority, as they have always done.

The so called "wild" was far less brutal than all early civilisations.
Civilisations emerge through power. The power of a few over the many, who may be controlled with force and ideologies.
The archaeological evidence from the Levant where civilisation began demonstates a falling of morality and the draconian explotation of the population, except from the ones with the robes and the ones with the weapons.

[Sculptor1]

ERROR.
For morality READ mortality.

[Sy Borg]

The OP calls to mind the "noble savage" trope. Nature is brutal and harsh. There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.

Humans will continue to "make things better" for an ever shrinking minority, as they have always done.

The so called "wild" was far less brutal than all early civilisations.
Civilisations emerge through power. The power of a few over the many, who may be controlled with force and ideologies.
The archaeological evidence from the Levant where civilisation began demonstates a falling of morality and the draconian explotation of the population, except from the ones with the robes and the ones with the weapons.

If life in the wild was safer and better, then humans would not flock into cities. The wild is full of privations, and even a simple infection can become fatal. The dangers of cities are less for humans.

[Sculptor1]

The OP calls to mind the "noble savage" trope. Nature is brutal and harsh. There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.

Humans will continue to "make things better" for an ever shrinking minority, as they have always done.

The so called "wild" was far less brutal than all early civilisations.
Civilisations emerge through power. The power of a few over the many, who may be controlled with force and ideologies.
The archaeological evidence from the Levant where civilisation began demonstates a falling of morality and the draconian explotation of the population, except from the ones with the robes and the ones with the weapons.

If life in the wild was safer and better, then humans would not flock into cities.

Humans never "flocked to cities".
When civilisation was created, people fled FROM them.

The wild is full of privations, and even a simple infection can become fatal. The dangers of cities are less for humans.

Humans evolved for millions of years with nature.
Your statement:
There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.
Is empirically false. And you just made it up on the spot, never having studied anthrolpoogy and archaeology.
I have.

[Sy Borg]

The OP calls to mind the "noble savage" trope. Nature is brutal and harsh. There is a good reason why humans created civilisations - to avoid the brutality of the wild.

Humans will continue to "make things better" for an ever shrinking minority, as they have always done.

The so called "wild" was far less brutal than all early civilisations.
Civilisations emerge through power. The power of a few over the many, who may be controlled with force and ideologies.
The archaeological evidence from the Levant where civilisation began demonstates a falling of morality and the draconian explotation of the population, except from the ones with the robes and the ones with the weapons.

If life in the wild was safer and better, then humans would not flock into cities.

Humans never "flocked to cities".
When civilisation was created, people fled FROM them.

Urbanisation has always increased.

Perhaps you would like to use your subgraduate anthropology studies to explain why about half of the world's population now lives in cities. This can only be the case if more people flocked to cities than fled from them: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization