Joseph Osei

Part of the explanation stems from the the failure of Philosophy to uphold the Aristotelian tradition in cultivating moral and intellectual virtues and in following the Logical Positivists and the 'Analytic Philosophers' in general blindly into rejecting morals and other values as meaningless in the middle of the last century. Just when Philosophy is beginning to show signs of recovery with the recent emphasis on Applied Ethics, we are experiencing a renewed attack on the humanities in general led by misguided scientists and politicians who think all that the world needs to survive and thrive are science and technology.

As philosophers we have to remind ourselves and educate others that promoting science and technology without philosophy is blind and almost as dangerous as driving a car in the night without headlights. Some research in Britain reported and discussed by NPR earlier in the year indicates that almost all the terrorists leaders including the master bomb makers are/were graduates from leading science and technology/&engineering graduate schools and colleges in US or other Western countries who took no courses in the humanities, including philosophy. (www,resources.infosecinstitute.com/the-role-of-technology-in.

modern-terrorism)

Imagine a person with one arm twice a strong as the other rowing a small boat. Knowledge has not progressed evenly in all fields; rather, our knowledge for figuring out means has far outstripped our knowledge for correctly determining ends.  Here's a link to an article of mine, in spanish: http://www.sustentabilidades.usach.cl/sites/sustentable/files/paginas/02.pdf

Psychopathy is common and normal in the human psyche.

Scientific advancements and advancements in knowledge certainly can solve some of our human problems, but because of the moral flaws in humans, new problems continue to arise creating new challenges and difficulties. Unless something occurs to actually improve human nature, a problem really of religion, then we will never really progress.

No. In  fact, the relation between science and technology is an important point to think Shoa (Adorno, Benjamín, Horkheimer). The science by the science is just technology and it doesn't means a better world and the history show it.

Naturalism rejects the need of a divine Creator and associated values and beliefs. The failing of naturalism is reflected in the misery and aggression you observe in society.

I csn not live with that

Can we do something about it using social media

Joseph Osei

Part of the explanation stems from the the failure of Philosophy to uphold the Aristotelian tradition in cultivating moral and intellectual virtues and in following the Logical Positivists and the 'Analytic Philosophers' in general blindly into rejecting morals and other values as meaningless in the middle of the last century. Just when Philosophy is beginning to show signs of recovery with the recent emphasis on Applied Ethics, we are experiencing a renewed attack on the humanities in general led by misguided scientists and politicians who think all that the world needs to survive and thrive are science and technology.

As philosophers we have to remind ourselves and educate others that promoting science and technology without philosophy is blind and almost as dangerous as driving a car in the night without headlights. Some research in Britain reported and discussed by NPR earlier in the year indicates that almost all the terrorists leaders including the master bomb makers are/were graduates from leading science and technology/&engineering graduate schools and colleges in US or other Western countries who took no courses in the humanities, including philosophy. (www,resources.infosecinstitute.com/the-role-of-technology-in.

modern-terrorism)

Dear Jersy,

You have raised an important question. The advancement in scientific knowledge is not a panacea to the end of misery and aggression. Of course, the giant headways in science and technology have provided some sought of relief to human societies. Yet, these are often cluttered with several pitfalls that sometimes aggravates the pain of human societies.

The problem has to do with the lack of a multidisciplinary approach to confronting the challenges of man. It has always been a huge, truncated approach to Science at the neglect of other equally important disciplines such as the humanities, particularly the study and researches in anthropology  and philosophy that instructs on human ethics which is the pinnacle for living in peace. Human virtues like love, care, accountability, etc. are advocated in these fields of study. A sheer neglect of the powerful indigenous knowledge of our forebears that were laden with moral values that monitored and tutored mankind on virtuous traits that enhances human life void of afflicting pain has been and continue to bring woes to mankind.

A blind search for answers to  life's problems in a singular approach to Science and Technology void of other disciplines is the cause of the misery. It is time to change the wrong perceptions of indigenous knowledge and tap the advancement of synergistic approach to our thinking, research and education while infusing the teaching of  moral values at all levels of education if we want to experience a world of peace.

Thanks

                              Dickson Adom

Thanks for greay answers

Advancements in Science are not sufficient entirely by themselves to remove human misery and suffering. The world is definitely becoming a better place in some respects with innovation but solutions create their own problems. Also, hegemony is not a problem that advancement in science confronts frontally, although some of the products of advancement have eventually broken hegemonies and created fora for solving human problems and legging over misery. Social Media, ICT have to an extent worked in this direction. However, they have also created their own problems and brought their own miseries.

Thanks a lot for your precious feedback

Jerzy

Some great answers in this chat!

Classical philosophy distinguished between different notions of "knowledge." Scientific knowledge is not identical to "wisdom" (let's understand "wisdom" here as the practical knowledge of how to lead a good life, though this term itself has many shades). So at the individual level you can have a person extremely knowledgeable in the sciences but also extremely unethical. The example someone gave below of driving a sophisticated car with the lights off is very good.

In fact, the theme of "hubris" (recurrent in ancient myths and modern sci-fi) suggests that decent people may lose sight of their own limitations in judgment, when blinded by too much knowledge.

I think at the heart of the problem is the issue that scientific knowledge is easy to transmit from one generation to the next -- it's basically information that you pass on -- but moral virtue is something that takes a lifetime to develop, and a constant struggle for each individual.

It becomes a bit more complex when you think at the social level, and it's possible that progress in science will slowly also help societies become less violent and cruel. (That's the thesis of Steven Pinker in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined"). I only read a little, but the thesis seems sound so far. Still we have a long way to go; and while the "STEM" sciences may give us tools to improve our standard of living, those tools can also be used for violence, so the answer probably lies elsewhere...

Dear Jerzy, 

As Konrad Lorenz said, the human species does not have natural weapons or elegant predatory instincts (which helps predators not to attack each other), but has produced deadly weapons. Could this mismatch between instincts and weapons be the cause of many evils?

Naturalism is amoral.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Achimowicz ,

As the ancient Latin dictum has it, "Man is a wolf to man."

That, of course, is a moral problem. So, I am very sympathetic to non-materialist, and philosophical answers, such as we see from Osei, above.

I will only add, for now, that puritanisms, of any denomination, are not the answer.

H.G. Callaway

 The world has become smaller & the science has made a far reaching progress developing the space travel . Aggressive & misery are the nature of human beings .They have an ambition even to rush for competition sometime in order to come out & receiving the success of competition ,they become more jealous ,sometimes envy for other who have become successful in their lifeline ,such person become aggressive ,& jealous for such person .

With this attitude of the mind such persons remains more aggressive & because of jealousy & envy they become more jealous with the result they remain frustrated ,creating their own anxiety ,worries,tension & frustration .

It is the nature of such person where science may not come to their help as they have to become own master & with their own practice they should control their mind.

This is my personal opinion 

Dear All

I am very impressed with the simplicity and the depth of your responses

jealousy is a tragic human feature which i had experienced once with my personal emotional life.

I went through this emotion (feeling) when the women i love deeply had shared with me her past intimate relationships which had broke her hearts (in a good will so we just can get to know better each other and understand past traumas). I had experienced "back in time jealousy "  which almost devastated my love to her.

The reason was my fear (anxiety)  that I am not good enough or better enough to keep her (conquer) forever. This resulted from my own complexes and traumas related to my past unhappy relationships (broken hearts) so round and round again in phobias and anxiety states which can be destructive for all around.

To make the long story short I would say something like that. To make peace and love others one must accept and love oneself. In this context the religious prayers stating that I should love other as much as love myself has a great meaning.

By the way religion is for me a "software patch" implemented on human genes to stop us from auto-destruction.

Jerzy

Any comments on that please

Mainz, Germany

Dear Achimowicz,

Looking to the political corollary of your criticism of personal jealousy, I would emphasize that the greater the levels of outward conformity in any given society or sub-group, the greater the levels and effects of jealousy are going to be. In consequence, I believe that, as a general point, it does little good to reject jealousy in moral theory, noting its negative effects, while at the same time accepting or encouraging overt conformity.

The connection is not difficult to understand. Uncritical conformity works on the basis of incentives offered to those who accept it. There are many forms of conformity and the incentives for its acceptance differ from case to case. Conformity also depends on outward signs of belonging to the given in-group. These signs, again, differ from case to case. They range from style of clothing to mouthing in-group slogans and opinions and much else. But insofar as the benefits of in-group membership come to depend on exemplifying the outward signs, this sets up a competition among those wanting to be recognized as part of the in-group. That in turn induces close examination and comparison of self to the possible competitors and paradigms: this is sometimes called "living in the eyes of the others." Every "superior" exemplification of the outward signs of in-group membership may become a focus of resentments and jealousy--as the "wanta be's" strive for the recognition of the group and the benefits arising therefrom.

Although I think you are right to see religion as a kind of "soft-ware patch," to prevent human destructiveness, the same can be said of cultures generally and various political forms which facilitate people living peacefully together in a single polity. There is a long tradition of discussions of similar ideas and claims regarding the transformation of human nature --the acquisition of a "second nature." Reduction of jealousy and inter-group rivalries feature in many of these traditions. Puritanisms, on the other hand, are conformist approaches to the same problem.

H.G. Callaway

The absence of ethics and honesty in Sciences is the main scientific and humanitarian problem today.

I am surprised reading for the third technological/industrial revolution, which is ongoing. I personally see dead humans from food, water, wars, aggressions, cancer, diseases; I would say that we are still in middle Ages.

Is there any one scientist that can say clearly that there is a simple efficient remedy for Cancer? Is there any one scientist to explain why thousands of people have not a simple piece of bread to eat? The Western countries have lost the combat of civilization and the new capitalism, which is growing, is equally deadly.  

Cholera and the bacterium Vibrio cholera; Soudan 2017; Thousands of dead humans.

Nothing different from “Cholera in the Middle Ages”; The Black death.

I do not see any real scientific advance from middle Ages until today the 2017. If, Scientists continue to keep silent without honesty, courage and ethics then no one scientific advance will really change the situation.  Science serves the capital and not the humanity.

This is due to the absolute dominance of the selfish genotype in the human civilization, which is the result of our origin from the animal kingdom. For details, see the article: “Dozy-chaos end of the human civilization”, JUSPS-B Vol. 29(4), 87-96 (2017) (http://dx.doi.org/10.22147/jusps-B/290402).

agree with Vassilis Doucas

Why there is so much aggression and misery in social context in spite of so huge progress in science ?

Scientific progress without ethical awareness can cause human beings to abuse science for personal selfish gains like developing weapons of mass destruction, hacking of critical IT systems to steal information, R&D that destroy our natural living environment etc.  Science & ethics should go hand-in-hand analogous to education & character building should go hand-in-hand - lacking the focus on either one will lead to an unbalanced development.

Is any correlation of war obrzęk with the solar activity cycle  ?

Ca we do something about it ?

I have just written a short article on this very topic.  The concept of negative intelligence is introduced.  The factor creating the negative attribution is lack of identifications.  http://blog.theultranet.com/2017/06/a-proposed-new-intellectual-metric-iq-vs-id.html

Genesis 6:11-13 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

@Daniel; I do not believe on the corrupted destiny of human being. I strongly believe that human can be educated and as Joseph nicely said, education is necessary to uphold the Aristotelian tradition in cultivating moral and intellectual virtues – Arete (moral virtue).  Things are very simple. The capital controls the world and, thus it should remain under pressure, ignorance and fear. Health, death, famine, wars are the simplest ways to control the societies and, in addition, these ways are very profitable.  

When we will decide to wake up and walk on our two legs then we will be free and responsible humans.

Nice inputs- by all friends

Daniel Keeran's answer: "Naturalism is amoral" is best. As long as there is so much inequality in the world for whatever reason,  the problem will not be solved. Yet a positive attitude is required.

Naturalism rejects God as unnecessary, so human laws should logically be designed only for human survival or "to do no harm" which then leads to "if it feels good" morality.

I believe this is a rare instance where a simple answer is adequate: science makes the hammer.  The human mind decides whether it will be used to drive a nail or break a head.

Suppressed premise: science has so far focused on the human mind mostly to investigate how it can be (further) enslaved as a production tool.

Regards

Strong leaders often display psychopathy.

Dramatic advances in science and technology have brought about ubiquitous changes in our lives. It seems that the latest developments in scientific realms have not been proportionate with those happening in the domain of morality and ethics. Indubitably, man's happiness depends on the presence of a logical balance between scientific and ethical issues. The sad consequences resulting from such lack of equilibrium, as you have very rightly observed, are instances of aggression and misery overshadowing all social contexts. I think that we need to rely on spiritualism whereby cooperation , sharing, and love override aggression, competition, and hatred. After all, science and spiritualism are the two necessary wings helping humanity fly to the summit of happiness.

Henry George discovered the answer in 1879 (please study the attachments).