Speculative Realism and Existentialism

[Im Still Ballin]

[COLOR="White"]"[/COLOR]The ethical impact of Speculative Realism is worth exploring. The Speculative Realists spend more time on metaphysics/epistemology and not much on the ethical importance of their framework. From what I can gather, some ethical implications of Speculative Realism is thus:

Everything we value and seek is the world "for us". However, the universe is "hollow" in the sense that values, hopes, struggles, are not inherent in the universe itself. Schopenhauer has his Will, a SR might say, and essentially anthropomorphozies the struggle of the individual human perspective to the universe. Plato might have his "Forms" but he is anthropomorphozing these to a "hollow" (non-value) by laying over the universe a veneer of human perspective where it should not be. These reifications are to be banished and the world to be seen as the contingent "stuff" that it is.

I can sympathize with this view of the hollow contingency that is covered with the veneer of human perspective. There are many ways to go about dissecting this. Of course, one is the fact that the "veneer" itself has to be accounted for. This of course brings up ideas of panpsychism and idealism. We will leave those out for now and just focus on the hollowness and the veneer as if they are two separate entities (one the real), and one the "illusion" that is reified. I think it may be reconcilled in existential ideas. The Absurd, the Angst, and the Bored discussed in Camus, Heidegger, and Schopenhauer seem to be getting at a hollowness. It pierces the veneer of humaness but can never truly be "felt" except as interpretation through our human construct. It is only coming at us as an echo through feelings of unease, angst, boredom, etc. Though the unease, angst, bored, unease, and absurd are thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc. (things that are of the human or animal perspective), they still might be telling us something of the general hollowness and contingency of the world of the real.[COLOR="White"]"[/COLOR]

[NumberSix]

People need to finally accept that there is such a thing as natural human behaviour. It's not all "social constructs" and philosophies. Lions act like lions. Dolphins act like dolphins. Humans act like humans.

[ItsMillerTime]

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/t...ism-69867.html

[Im Still Ballin]

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/t...ism-69867.html

Ah, yes. Thanks for linking my account on that forum.

[Andrew Wiggins]

reported for plagiarism

[SugarHill]

Ah, yes. Thanks for linking my account on that forum.

[Im Still Ballin]

People need to finally accept that there is such a thing as natural human behaviour. It's not all "social constructs" and philosophies. Lions act like lions. Dolphins act like dolphins. Humans act like humans.

But you cannot ignore that environment very much has an important role in the consciousness of humanity? Can thou not ignore this? Just like how the Amur Tiger has more fat compared to it's cousin the Bengal due to it's harsh Siberian environment...

Is it such a stretch to accept that our consciousness is directly affected by our environment, and in turn the social constructs on that environment? Can thou not?

[DeuceWallaces]

Plagiarism is not cool.

Especially when you make it so obvious.

[NumberSix]

But you cannot ignore that environment very much has an important role in the consciousness of humanity? Can thou not ignore this? Just like how the Amur Tiger has more fat compared to it's cousin the Bengal due to it's harsh Siberian environment...

Is it such a stretch to accept that our consciousness is directly affected by our environment, and in turn the social constructs on that environment? Can thou not?

Yes, but humans don't act the way they do because of some kind of cosmic truth. Humans act the way we do because humans with certain temperaments survived and reproduced more often than humans with other temperaments.

Social constructs are a social construct.

[Im Still Ballin]

Yes, but humans don't act the way they do because of some kind of cosmic truth. Humans act the way we do because humans with certain temperaments survived and reproduced more often than humans with other temperaments.

Social constructs are a social construct.

So what you're saying is that the human consciousness is a result of reproduction and biology?

Fascinating.

[Im Still Ballin]

Plagiarism is not cool.

Especially when you make it so obvious.

Do I still have to reference if it's from my own account on PhilosophyForums?