GENIUS FORUMS

Cory wrote:

Ok, so you admit, that there needs to be a certain environment in order for a wise individual to come into being and that the wrong environment can hold people back

Yes, I agree. Both are significant, however individuals are predisposed to pursue certain things even before the environment conditions them into pursuing them in the first place.

The truth is that humans will find ways of escaping reality regardless of environment.

A wise man can live in a corrupt society because he is strong, while weak people are easily corrupted. Even if the vices were not available, these weak people would still be predisposed to escape reality somehow and get into mischief. They would find a way.

Cory wrote:

Not really. A very, very small minority of humans create and organize a society - - whereas the rest are conditioned with reward and punishment, fear, pride and shame, to obey the rules. The environment largely determines how individuals live, as does genes.

The organizers are victimized too, and the conditioned ones initially took the steps to be addicted on their own accord. My main point is that the present society is a reflection of the maturity of people’s desires. The people create the society that they prefer in terms of what pleasures they can freely pursue.

For instance: Men sit around and think about what pleasures they can pursue with each other on the weekend, and as a result we have the present society - the present environment.

This debate reminds of the chicken or the egg question.

what is primary? the chicken or the egg? Of course they are interconnected, and they play off each other, but does one weigh more heavily?

Cory: Ok, so you admit, that there needs to be a certain environment in order for a wise individual to come into being and that the wrong environment can hold people back

Ryan: Yes, I agree. Both are significant, however individuals are predisposed to pursue certain things even before the environment conditions them into pursuing them in the first place.

I am in no way denying that. You are correct there.

Ryan wrote: The truth is that humans will find ways of escaping reality regardless of environment.

But they escape to certain degrees - and the degree depends on the environment. The degree that humans escape and the number of humans who escape will be increased when you introduce certain factors into the environment. It is not reasonable to want everyone to be perfect right now. But it is reasonable to value each person living the best that their genes are capable of living. The result of having people raised in the best way possible is that future generations will have a greater chance of becoming more perfect.

Obesity, bullemia, alcoholism, necrophilia, serial killing, rotten teeth - - These are all maladies of character that result from a poor environment as much as they do genes. Yes, there are genes disposed for the behavior, but if there are no triggers to nurture and feed these undesirable energies, then their occurrences will be drastically reduced.

Ryan wrote: Even if the vices were not available, these weak people would still be predisposed to escape reality somehow and get into mischief. They would find a way.

Oh, so we should just write them off? We shouldn’t work to improve education, environment, society, and our individual character?

What is it that you mean to imply? that we should just throw our hands up in cynicism?

Ryan: My main point is that the present society is a reflection of the maturity of people’s desires.

So does implementing new environments improve humanity, or does it not?

Ryan wrote: The people create the society that they prefer in terms of what pleasures they can freely pursue.

Your main point seems to have dramatically changed since your original posts on this thread. You are now suddenly arguing that people ‘freely’ purse. I thought it was all genes?

Ryan wrote: Men sit around and think about what pleasures they can pursue with each other on the weekend, and as a result we have the present society - the present environment.

I think the crux of the debate is this:

How can you endeavor to improve a situation without having an ideal of what is best?

And should you endeavor to improve a situation by having an idea of what is best?

Should you find meaning in life by trying to improve yourself?

Or should you just throw your hands up in cynicism and find contentment being a moth fixated on the blinding light?

Ryan wrote:
This debate reminds of the chicken or the egg question.

What is primary? the chicken or the egg? Of course they are interconnected, and they play off each other, but does one weigh more heavily?

The fact is that if you consistently drink alcohol while you are pregnant, the baby is going to emerge with serious brain damage.

When it all comes down to it, emphasizing one(genes) or the other(environment) is a cop out. Both are equally important.

Plenty of people get stuck on blaming their parents, blaming their environment - - they get stuck on the idea that they were once perfectly ok, that they never did anything wrong and that the environment absolutely screwed them over.

That is only partly true, environment is very damaging, but genes do play a strong role --

by emphasizing environment so lopsidedly, you are just circumventing the painful task of acknowledging your inherent weaknesses and thus circumventing the resopnsible act of trying to overcome them. It’s easy to criticize everyone else’s flaws while living oblivious to your own.

Likewise,

There are plenty of people who use genes as a cynical justification for their desire to not do anything about the unsatisfactory state of their own character and the intelligence of the world, in other words: it is just an excuse used to be complacent and submissive to what is easy.

To overcome irrationality, it is rational to experiment with different environments, excercise, diet, reading, friends and perhaps medication in order to achieve a balance that enables you to function more sanely. We can't just blame it all on the genes and cynically veto the possiblity of altering the environment in in a way that might cause one to function more effectively and rationally as an individual. By inproving your individual functioning you improve the functioning of humanity at large.


- Perhaps this is just my bad genes speaking!

Cory,

These questions are very good:

How can you endeavor to improve a situation without having an ideal of what is best?

I think we need to have some sort of ideal of what is best, which is based on what we are discontent about in ourselves and in others.

Cory wrote:

And should you endeavor to improve a situation by having an idea of what is best?

It’s a nice idea, but I find myself rather powerless to do anything. I would like to be useful, but I have been cynical lately on the possibility of usefulness. I just don’t know.

Cory wrote:

Should you find meaning in life by trying to improve yourself?

Absolutely.

Or should you just throw your hands up in cynicism and find contentment being a moth fixated on the blinding light?

No.

Cory wrote:

What is it that you mean to imply? that we should just throw our hands up in cynicism?

No we shouldn’t, but one must be realistic in terms of who can be changed. The fact is that most people do not want to listen to this stuff.

Cory wrote:

So does implementing new environments improve humanity, or does it not?

Yes it does, however one can only take changes so far when those groups are ready for the changes, for instance: The west is sane enough to handle a democracy, but most Arabs states are not. However, in the west large numbers are not yet ready to lose vices like Alcohol, gambling, and cigarettes.

But I agree with you that the educated individuals shouldn’t stop expressing themselves. Passing on intelligent memes maybe the best thing the philosopher can do.

Cory wrote:

When it all comes down to it, emphasizing one(genes) or the other(environment) is a cop out. Both are equally important.

Yes I agree that the genetic configuration is a reflection of the environment just as much as the environment is a reflection of the genetic configuration.

However it gets tricky when one starts measuring flaws that have been passed on through a family line over many generations. The changes in the genome could make it harder for someone to stop certain behaviors that have been passed on compared to someone who doesnt have a history of that flaw.

But I'm not saying it is impossble, and we shouldnt be cynical and just give up on people. it's just harder for them that's all. There's more friction for some people to overcome, and generally humans want the easiest route possible, and there we have the present age.

Just like it is more difficult for women and blacks to be enlighened, but its not impossible, just more difficult. they are the true underdogs of the spiritual world.