COLLISION: Hitchens vs. Wilson

[amw79]

He's clearly not a nutjob as the film will testify. He comes across as a decent bloke.

I've just watched the film this evening, and re-read the above quote from one of his books (to try to "hear the tone" a bit better); but still have no idea what he's getting at.

I await Arcanus's reply.

[Darwinian]

Were did you get to see the film.. Any chance it's downloadable?

[amw79]

Not that I advocate downloading illegal content in any manner, but 'piratebay' may be able to help you....

[Darwinian]

Great minds think alike. Well nearly, I chose Minova

[amw79]

<rubs hands together Mr Burns-style>
Eeeeexcellent.

[amw79]

While waiting for Arcanus' response to the earlier Wilson quote, I thought I'd offer some thoughts on Wilson's main objection in the film; namely that although Hitchens can determine right and wrong, he can offer no explanation as to where it comes from.

I think that morality has been partially explanied by Darwinian methods. The theories and experiments on altruism have been well documented, and this is a good beginning for the basis of morality. However I think that the often overlooked element is that of language.

Once language evolved within early humans, there developed the extraordinary ability to "think in words". The ability to 'think in words' allows people to contemplate one's past and one's future, rather than being forever locked within the present moment. This in turn allows people to think outside of their own physical being, both temporally and physically. The upshot of which is that the earliest human beings could 'put themselves' in the place of others. Imagagining what it is lilke, to be in "someone elses shoes".

Consequently they could imagine what it would be like to suffer pain at anothers hand, to suffer embarassment through one's own actions and so on... At this point people could begin thinking "What happened to him is terrible, I'd hate the same to happen to me"/"How he treated her was terrible, I'd hate someone to treat me like that".

This being the beginning of empathy. Once these functions are in place, it is not a stretch of the imagination to propose societies starting to encourage such empathetic behaviours, and these behaviours then being both naturally selected, but also intellectually contemplated.

Just some thoughts?

[theVOID]

Morality is rooted in survival and is a trait that all species have in some form. From the very first organism on earth through to our present day complexity, the need to survive is the primary function of all life.

Moralities first real wave came with the first social animals, survival became about more than looking after your own back, safety in numbers was discovered and found to be so obvious and effective that it required a new priority, look after yourself first and foremost - but keep your kind on good terms in case you need them.

That morality grew, most likely because of the way the brain works, more specifically how memory works. Survival is the innate instinct, society is the way to survive and pleasure is associated with success. Pleasure is a drug all life craves, and if ones primary criteria of pleasure or happiness is survival, then everything that ensures survival will be inevitably associated with happiness and pleasure in the mind. This means over time the society will become inevitably linked to the pleasure of successfully surviving, leading to solidarity and sociality them selves becoming things associated with happiness.

It all leads from there, a gradual network of associations stemming from survival.

[Dotard]

I'm guessing ol' Arcanus has decided his vastly superior intellect is wasted on such depraved intellectually inept folks as ourselves.

[fr0d0]

Some people just don't like repeating themselves

[leo-rcc]

We all know that Arcanus leaves the forum now and again for a few weeks due to his job(s).