I think that civilization does progress because do not live in a perfect society, and we will always try to make our society perfect. We invented the idea of 'human rights' and we are still trying to understand what that means, and how important they are. Can 'human rights' trump 'cultural rights'?
It clearly doesn't progress at all. You can read about far more enlightened individuals, such as Socrates, Cicero,and Aristophanes, that lived over 2000 years ago.
Don't confuse ideological baffle-gab and technical prowess with "progress."
It clearly doesn't progress at all. You can read about far more enlightened individuals, such as Socrates, Cicero,and Aristophanes, that lived over 2000 years ago.
Don't confuse ideological baffle-gab and technical prowess with "progress."
While I applaud those thinkers are cornerstones of western civilization I wouldn't call them enlightened in the modern sense of the word.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
It clearly doesn't progress at all. You can read about far more enlightened individuals, such as Socrates, Cicero,and Aristophanes, that lived over 2000 years ago.
Don't confuse ideological baffle-gab and technical prowess with "progress."
Even the greatest philosophers that lived 2000 years ago had some barbaric ideas. We continue to use history to learn from the smartest people, to learn from our biggest mistakes and triumphs, but we have not reached a point where we have built the perfect civilization. That is why we are always trying to find better ways of living with each other, and finding self fulfillment.
I don't really understand what you mean when you say we are not progressing. Do you think we had at one point already reached the apex of civilization?
Are you saying I'd go back and change my post if it hadn't been quoted? I've never done this so stop attempting to slander me.
The tactic would not surprise me, good sir.
Additionally, slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.
Quote:
Most reasonably intelligent people would be able to see that it was tongue in cheek. Next time I'll put it in big bright neon green letters just for you! Is that good enough for you?
A loaded question. I won't dignify it with a direct response. Instead, I will respond by saying most reasonably intelligent people would say imprisonment is too strong a penalty for adultery.
Quote:
For summary conviction offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (which includes all criminal law), section 787 of the Criminal Code of Canada specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5000 or both.
Once again you are wrong. Keep in mind that first time offenders rarely get the maximum.
What did I say? Let's look back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsofFire
You're right about stoning, but you're wrong about prison. If convicted of a criminal offense, a defendant almost always does time, and may additionally be fined. The time may be served in something as minor as house-arrest or community service, all the way up to maximum security, but in some way, shape, or form, they lose their freedom until the sentence is satisfied.
Dear me! Looks like I was right all along!
Quote:
Is there a point to this or are you just throwing random gibberish on the wall in the hope that some of it will stick and fool people into believing you're smart?
My point is your statements are flawed. I have proven them to be so, and I am not the first to have done so. Even in the face of damning evidence you continue to cling to your position of total moral superiority. My hope is that if I throw enough of it at you, some of it will hopefully stick and you can realize the error of your ways. This is not a debate about whom is smarter than whom. Rather, your remarks towards certain parties in this discussion, myself included, have been rather callous and rude, and I will not stand for it.
It clearly doesn't progress at all. You can read about far more enlightened individuals, such as Socrates, Cicero,and Aristophanes, that lived over 2000 years ago.
Don't confuse ideological baffle-gab and technical prowess with "progress."
But Peter there is always going to be a seperation between "Enlightened people" and mans inate and inbread more violent and bloody nature, something that as a species we're not going to overcome any time soon.
Our civilization thrives and progresses the most during periods of bloody conflict.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
So just a blanket warning that this thread contains too many inappropriate jokes and too many personal insults. Deleting posts is a lot of work, and we mods all have better things to do than to be the lunchlady while you guys have a food fight. The next step is that the thread will be locked and people will be asked to take a break from CP.
That concludes our special message from the mods. Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about civilization, barbarism, Socrates, Plato and (I hope) Michel Foucault.
That's bizarre. What gives you that idea? Their words are just as relevant now as they were back then.
How enlightened was their attitude towards women? Towards those of a different skin colour? I'm saying their words don't have value, just that they are a product of their times.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
But Peter there is always going to be a seperation between "Enlightened people" and mans inate and inbread more violent and bloody nature, something that as a species we're not going to overcome any time soon.
Our civilization thrives and progresses the most during periods of bloody conflict.
I think he is saying that progress does not mean inventing the microwave.
I think the jury is still out on whether we are inherently evil (a lot of western philosophy) or inherently good (a lot of far eastern philosophy). I tend to side with humanism...
I think he is saying that progress does not mean inventing the microwave.
I think the jury is still out on whether we are inherently evil (a lot of western philosophy) or inherently good (a lot of far eastern philosophy). I tend to side with humanism...
However the moral depravity that we've seen on both the micro scale and macro scale gives us strong empirical evidence to the violent and destructive patterns inherent in our nature.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
I think he is saying that progress does not mean inventing the microwave.
I think the jury is still out on whether we are inherently evil (a lot of western philosophy) or inherently good (a lot of far eastern philosophy). I tend to side with humanism...
Woah a minute there tex. I didn't say we're inherently evil by any stretch. We're born and bread cannibals with intense property defense instincts.
you also have to remember that for a long time our ancesters could almost be called a prey species but because of evolution we used our intellect to move to the top of the food chain instead of being stuck in the middle.
Our bloody nature evolves from the instinct to protect and posses.
Somehow the Iranian Courts and their leadership have never gone beyond the fact that woman are nothing more then property and they treat them that way.
either possess them all the way, or get rid of them.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
However the moral depravity that we've seen on both the micro scale and macro scale gives us strong empirical evidence to the violent and destructive patterns inherent in our nature.
Could that simply be nurture rather than nature?
Looking back at the societies of the first nations, there were some cultures that were rather violent, but the majority were peaceful and lived harmoniously without the rule of 'law' as we define it. Like I quoted earlier, their more primitive culture seemed to be far more fair and enlightened than the much more advanced Europeans. As Brant said, they had no prisons or dungeons.
Looking back at the societies of the first nations, there were some cultures that were rather violent, but the majority were peaceful and lived harmoniously without the rule of 'law' as we define it. Like I quoted earlier, their more primitive culture seemed to be far more fair and enlightened than the much more advanced Europeans. As Brant said, they had no prisons or dungeons.
How do you define it though? Some form of social contract?
Regardless I still see it as about amassing as much power and control over your own sphere of influence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
How enlightened was their attitude towards women? Towards those of a different skin colour? I'm saying their words don't have value, just that they are a product of their times.
Read "The Republic" and find out. Actually, no. Read "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom and learn how historicism completely poisons our modern perceptions of philosophy and then go read "The Republic." I'm not going to be an apologist for Socrates. The man deserves much, much better.
I think he is saying that progress does not mean inventing the microwave.
I think the jury is still out on whether we are inherently evil (a lot of western philosophy) or inherently good (a lot of far eastern philosophy). I tend to side with humanism...
Read "The Republic" and find out. Actually, no. Read "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom and learn how historicism completely poisons our modern perceptions of philosophy and then go read "The Republic." I'm not going to be an apologist for Socrates. The man deserves much, much better.
Considering I'm a student of History my mind is apparently too closed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Woah a minute there tex. I didn't say we're inherently evil by any stretch. We're born and bread cannibals with intense property defense instincts.
you also have to remember that for a long time our ancesters could almost be called a prey species but because of evolution we used our intellect to move to the top of the food chain instead of being stuck in the middle.
Our bloody nature evolves from the instinct to protect and posses.
Somehow the Iranian Courts and their leadership have never gone beyond the fact that woman are nothing more then property and they treat them that way.
either possess them all the way, or get rid of them.
I completely agree that a lot of evil comes from the desire to possess, but is that an inherent human trait? Or simply taught to us as a child. Would it go against our nature if we were taught to live in harmony with the earth, and not desire to own material things rather than to simply enjoy them? Early first nations culture, and a lot of far eastern ways of thinking seem to contradict that to me.
Looking back at the societies of the first nations, there were some cultures that were rather violent, but the majority were peaceful and lived harmoniously without the rule of 'law' as we define it. Like I quoted earlier, their more primitive culture seemed to be far more fair and enlightened than the much more advanced Europeans. As Brant said, they had no prisons or dungeons.
The Irquios for example were tremendously violent and fought large scale bloody wars against each other.
The Souix (sp?) had a fairly bloody history as well.
Their system of crime and punishment was dealt with fairly harshly, for the most part either with banishment which usually meant a long lingering death or with executions.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
