| | |
|
WeAreAllKin 26 - 03 Mar 2010 - Main.EricaSelig
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010
Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and we should try our best to be mindful of it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat other living things, we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | Jonathan, I think you brought up a great point about our ability to construct artificial identities to create bonds between people who otherwise might not care about one another – especially where you note the utility in doing so. The only question I have is: Can those identities actually evolve to the point where we create bonds between all other human beings? As I believe Kay correctly pointed out, we have a tendency to create identities so as to separate one another into categories of “we” and “they.” Similarly, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the kinship bonds created among the “we” (even the artificial ones) are often dependant upon those “we” being able to contrast themselves to a “they” (i.e. any sense of kinship retains some idea of exclusivity). I hope that I am wrong and that we can expand our sense of kinship far enough to respect all human beings – but given our as track record so far, I remain somewhat skeptical.
-- TaylorMcGowan - 02 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
@Taylor
Recognizing and negating the artificial constraints that separate us is certainly possible. At the very at least, if we can't completely break from the more negative aspects of this postmodern society we find ourselves in, we should strive for it. I personally believe that art has the capacity to do this, that is, to jolt people into higher awareness, destroy certain values and create others in their place.
Thinkers throughout the ages have written on this topic, Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence and Adorno's ideas on determinate negation come to mind.
@ Matt
Mr Dawkins is all about genetics! But his ethical theories, or the ethical implications latent in his scientific works, really do revolve around biology. In The Selfish Gene, he created a whole new paradigm about classifying kinship, that is, he called humans and animals all "gene machines" and explores the biological implications therein. It's a really great book if you get a chance to read it, what with all our free time. 
-- EricaSelig - 03 Mar 2010 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |