-this is a public scroll: anyone can see this scroll-
the
following
philosophical
essays
were
all
written
before
the
existence
of
chatgpt
and
its
wide
availability
to
the
public
and
had
been
published
on
sites
such
as
facebook
and
has
a
timestamp
on
notewiki
that
long
precedes
chatgpt's
availability.
none
of
the
material
has
been
modified,
edited,
or
supported
in
any
way
form
or
manner,
not
even
by
means
of
inspiration
by
any
thing
that
has
to
do
with
language
model
ai's
and
the
author
sworn
affirms
this.
if
there
was
any
instance
of
a
false
positive
of
a
likely
or
indeterminacy,
it
is
probably
because
chatgpt
was
trained
in
inclusion
of
these
essays
as
a
dataset.
there
will
be
better
ways
developed
for
to
document
this,
to
defend
the
authenticity
of
texts,
but
ultimately
these
essays
were
long
written
before
the
availability
of
chatgpt.
The
modern
advances
of
science
had
made
tremendous
strides
in
the
advancement
of
the
individual
livelihood
of
man.
These
same
advancements
had
attempted
to
disprove
of
or
prove
away
religion
as
if
religion,
its
constructs
and
epithets
are
things
of
so
called
man’s
superstitious
past,
and
its
notions
only
nominal
to
the
advancement
and
sufficiency
of
man’s
livelihood.
Modern
man
no
longer
exists
within
the
framework
of
community,
but
exists
as
an
atomistic
individual
taking
from
the
resource
networks
of
established
complex
infrastructure
but
psychologically
existing
as
a
monadic
individualist,
an
island
within
a
vast
ocean
of
bleating
islands
whose
suffering
is
repeated
on
the
echoes
of
the
internet.
The
modern
man
is
a
confronted
animal,
both
assailed
by
the
overturned
promises
of
a
non
existent
paradisos,
but
also
haunted
by
an
ever
increasing
escalation
of
technology
that
is
stripping
away
the
autonomy
that
defined
his
very
modern
meaning.
Man
thus
is
no
longer
content,
satisfied,
or
pleased
with
his
current
predicament,
yet
no
thought
from
the
distant
past
seem
to
able
to
supplant
his
current
dismissive
fortitude.
The
questions
we
seek
to
ask
in
this
paper
is
that
is
mankind
condemned
by
this
robot
fate,
the
belief
that
the
purpose
of
human
existence
is
to
obey
the
same
alpha
and
omega
of
other
species,
to
exist,
then
to
be
replaced
by
something
better
-
supposedly
leaner,
meaner,
claw,
tooth,
and
nail.
This
obviously
had
not
been
the
case
for
the
past
100000
years
of
the
homo
sapiens
history.
Brains
probably
grew
bigger,
but
apparent
physical
changes
of
the
dramatic
kind
you
see
fast
and
steady
in
other
species
did
not
happen
to
these
breeds
of
apes.
Instead
the
opposite
had
been
happening.
Mankind
had
almost
stifled
if
not
halted
his
biological
morphological
changes.
No
specific
direction
can
be
given
to
where
he/she
is
heading.
His/her
direction
instead
is
one
that
is
vertical
rather
than
horizontal
if
these
metaphors
can
be
applied.
Mankind
is
becoming
a
beast
of
culture
rather
than
biology.
Tools,
machinery,
technology
-
one
then
the
other
had
replaced
every
possible
natural
opposition
from
saber
tooth
tiger
to
the
tyranny
of
droughts
to
flat
out
hunger.
Mankind’s
greatest
obstacle
had
instead
become
himself
and
his
cultural
innovations
whether
it
be
the
atomic
bomb
or
the
future
pronounced
artificial
but
intelligent
being
that
is
to
be
born.
I
think
its
safe
to
deem,
mankind’s
evolution
is
very
different
from
the
other
beasts.
Traditional
biologists
still
tries
to
fit
what
is
happening
under
the
framework
of
some
kind
of
natural
selection.
This
however
is
just
not
the
case.
It
is
not
apparent
morphological
biological
changes
that
is
happening,
but
instead
cultural,
conceptual
evolutions.
Sure
there
might
be
changes
happening
to
the
brains,
but
for
every
engineer
born
and
trained
there
is
also
a
new
kind
of
musician,
a
new
kind
of
athlete,
and
a
new
kind
of
vacuum
cleaner.
Humanity’s
evolution
no
longer
functions
biologically,
but
neither
does
it
function
individually.
Population
genetics
almost
seems
irrelevant
to
the
phenotype
selected
for
next
generation
continuity.
Instead
market
forces
,
job
markets
,
and
ever
evolving
changing,
dynamically
changing
and
creative
societies
seem
to
be
doing
selection
of
the
reproductive
kind,
but
under
careful
observations
it
is
also
electrifying
to
note
that
social
forces
doesn't
seem
to
have
any
direction
influence
at
all
on
who
gets
selected
in
most
so
called
developed
or
under
developed
societies.
Human
beings
also
do
not
seem
to
be
survived
by
their
offspring,
but
by
cultural
descendants,
memes,
as
once
titled,
that
spread,
replicate,
and
morph
via
generations.
Viral
virility,
meme
theory,
innovative
designs,
stereotypes,
political
correctness
all
seem
to
revolve
around
a
system
of
organic
culture
vastly
different
from
that
of
the
animal
kingdom.
To
say
this
is
behavior
arising
from
a
complex
primatology
and
to
define
it
simply
within
the
scope
of
sociobiology
seem
to
be
limiting
the
scope
of
this
artifice.
It
does
not
seem
entirely
biological
or
similar
in
any
way
with
its
natural
antecedents.
It
can
almost
be
said
metaphorically,
that
man
is
a
cross
between
‘cultural
god’
and
man.
the
Demigod
nature
of
human
nature
,
makes
it
less
and
less
animal,
and
more
and
more
of
a
different
beast,
a
different
‘nature’.
Every
new
technology
and
its
spheres
of
electromagnetic
information
sphere
-
the
'noosphere',
the
sphere
of
information,
that
has
been
created
seem
to
further
enforce
and
scope
this
observation.
This
paper
thus
is
the
exploration
of
the
dynamics
of
human
culture,
and
to
argue
that
mankind
has
transcended
already
from
the
traditional
fate
of
the
animal
kingdom.
It
is
no
longer
‘natural’
selection
that
drives
necessarily
the
evolution
of
man,
and
mankind’s
triumph
to
continue
to
stay
ahead
of
the
extinction
curve
is
because
of
his
scaling
mechanism
of
cultural
evolution.
Cultural
evolution
in
most
instances
is
not
based
upon
the
environments
of
nature,
but
on
the
modus
operandi’s
of
man’s
own
simulacrums.
His
confounding
cultural
constructions,
whether
it
be
the
urban
jungle
of
modern
points
and
digits
or
the
future
scope
of
the
VR
sphere
designates
that
his
body
is
only
part
determinant
to
his
genetic
continuity.
The
contents
of
his
mind
per
say
seem
to
speak
much
larger
volumes.
This
relegated
focus
on
man’s
future
cultural
destiny
has
made
his
success
not
necessarily
a
biological
genetic
one,
but
a
cultural
information
variant
one.
The
role
religion
plays
here
is
obvious.
Assuming
that
man
is
a
group
animal,
and
functions
competitively
via
forces
of
culture.
The
influence
of
one
culture
versus
the
other
marks
remarkable
difference.
These
arguments
will
get
more
fine
tuned
over
time,
and
will
involve
primarily
the
study
of
Max
Weber’s
work
but
befitting
it
within
a
darwinian
context
that
focuses
on
group
theory
and
competitive
group
dynamics.
Research,
philosophy,
and
comparative
studies
of
religion
had
helped
me
reach
this
point,
and
it
might
be
a
thought
that
is
reverberated
by
others;
however,
this
viewpoint
if
widely
accepted
will
greatly
challenged
the
mistaken
notions
of
social
darwinism
that
had
placed
such
great
precedence
and
had
caused
such
immense
suffering
by
being
used
to
justify
situations
that
are
entirely
not
founded
on
foundations
of
science.
I
will
argue,
yes
mankind
is
evolving,
but
he
is
evolving
more
culturally
than
biologically.
It
is
one
culture’s
success
versus
another
that
makes
all
the
difference.
Genetic drift (allelic drift or the Wright effect) is the change in the frequency of an existing gene variant (allele) in a population due to random chance.
Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. It can also cause initially rare alleles to become much more frequent and even fixed.
When few copies of an allele exist, the ef... [enter] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Our
modern
day
and
age
often
make
arguments
in
relations
to
science
and
religion
as
if
they
are
mutually
exclusive.
It
is
assumed
that
one
cannot
be
a
practitioner
of
science
if
one
holds
religious
beliefs
because
there
is
an
absolute
truth
in
the
truths
explored
by
the
scientist
whereas
the
religious
are
holding
on
to
tenets
mainly
by
matters
of
faith.
This
is
a
gross
misunderstanding
of
both
religion
and
science,
and
people
that
hold
such
views
can
be
analyzed
as
both
lacking
in
both
understanding
of
religion
or
science.
Science
is
not
a
competition
of
belief
or
fact
or
even
truth,
science
is
merely
a
set
of
methods
utilized
to
explore
the
validity
of
statements
that
can
only
be
probabilistically
assessed
to
be
true
or
false
by
repeatability
and
percentage.
Nothing
in
science
is
100%
true,
it
can
only
be
true
to
the
number
of
times
it
is
repeated,
and
we
cannot
guarantee
that
the
nth
time
will
fail
in
proving
the
validity
of
a
hypothesis.
Something
in
science
can
hold
true
via
the
number
of
times
it
is
tested
expanded
to
the
x
or
n
variable
via
method
of
deduction.
However,
we
cannot
eliminate
the
probability
that
there
are
instances
where
gravitational
forces
will
fail
or
that
some
supranatural
consciousness
can
bend
or
even
eliminate
the
laws
of
physics
in
its
entirety
–
factors
of
which
we
do
not
know
and
thus
we
relegate
to
the
dark
matter
category.
As
proven
via
examination
macrocosmic
physics
behaves
very
different
from
microcosmic
physics
–
that
is
to
say
newtonian
laws
hold
true
for
things
observed
at
a
scale,
but
when
it
comes
to
subatomic
particles
–
things
behave
differently
and
at
less
discreet
probabilities.
Thus
scientific
fact
is
not
a
set
of
creeds,
a
monolithic
enterprise,
but
merely
what
we
believe
to
be
true
at
this
time
and
stage
of
human
epistemology
–
as
observed
and
deduced
by
our
methods
of
perception
and
mathematical
logic-
from
newtonian
to
einstein
to
planck.
We
can
say
scientific
fact
is
a
collage
and
composite
of
verified
truths
like
a
wikipedia
page
composed
by
a
community
of
experts
who
had
made
their
profession
in
verifications.
Religious
truths
and
religious
facts
can
also
be
‘scientifically
true’
in
the
sense
that
they
can
be
verified
to
be
true.
To
say
that
science
is
competing
with
religion
is
to
say
elephants
and
lizards
are
both
reptiles,
and
the
single
cell
amoeba
is
liken
to
a
giraffe
–
that
is
to
say
the
person
arguing
these
things
have
set
up
two
sets
of
definitions
that
they
have
equated
with
things
they
do
not
have
any
understanding
as
if
these
‘words’
have
direct
equivalence
or
contradiction
and
can
be
thrown
to
compare
one
with
the
other.
Science
as
method
–
can
be
used
to
explore
certain
religious
truths
or
facts.
Scientific
facts
can
include
religious
truths
or
facts
–
and
the
same
can
be
said
that
religious
truths
or
facts
can
be
scientific.
An
example
is
this
–
“love
thy
neighbor”
–
“love
thy
neighbor
to
achieve
the
kingdom
of
God”
–
that
is
to
say
from
a
social
science
point
of
view
if
everyone
loved
and
exercised
kindness
to
their
neighbor
the
world
will
be
a
better
place
or
even
an
utopian
place.
This
religious
claim
is
scientifically
true
and
can
be
verified
statistically.
Scientific
facts
and
truths
are
different
from
mathematical
facts
and
truths.
Scientific
facts
and
truths
are
not
inductive,
they
are
deductive.
Because
we
cannot
assume
it
will
hold
true
every
time
or
at
all
scales
of
observation,
scientific
truths
are
probabilistic
at
best;
however,
mathematical
truths
are
true
by
definition
and
from
definition
comes
proposition,
two
parallel
lines
simply
do
not
intersect
since
they
have
the
same
slope
but
at
a
different
x
and
y
position.
If
they
intersect
they
are
the
same
line.
Thus
by
definition
mathematical
truths
are
true
in
all
n
cases
whereas
scientific
truths
and
facts
are
only
truth
by
instance
and
probability
depending
on
the
scale
and
method
of
observation
and
the
number
of
times
something
has
been
tried.
Current
and
modernist
arguments
will
also
argue
further
that
we
exist
in
an
information
based
probable
universe
where
consciousness
determines
outcome
by
selectively
choosing
an
outcome
that
is
predetermined
and
preset
by
the
‘structure’
of
the
universe.
Structuralism
–
via
methods
of
science
we
deduce
that
universe
is
structural;
that
atoms
molecules
and
the
organic
and
inorganic
matter
composed
has
a
limited
set
of
relations
and
functionality.
An
atom
possesses
neutrons,
protons,
and
electron
shells
positive
or
negative
determines
their
ionization
and
charge,
thus
generating
in
re
the
strong
and
weak
forces,
electric
and
magnetic.
The
structure
of
atoms
determines
the
structure
of
molecules
and
the
structure
of
molecules
determines
the
structure
of
things
constructed
from
molecules
–
thus
‘the
world’
is
a
structural
entity,
measurable,
deducible
and
predictive.
Time
and
space
relations
as
matter
possessing
mass
moves
through
point
and
position
create
processes
which
in
return
can
generate
ideas
and
also
the
actual
movement
and
relation
of
matter.
State
changes
phase
changes
are
in
flux
as
so
is
the
position
of
matter
through
space-time,
moving
in
relative
to
the
speed
of
light.
Somewhere
in
all
of
this
mess
is
consciousness
–
and
the
question
is
where.
If
there
is
one
debate
that
can
be
debated
between
the
scientific
hypothesis
and
the
religious
claim
–
is
that
modern
bio-neurological
arguments
will
say
that
the
consciousness
is
an
expo
facto
of
the
synaptic
firings
of
the
biological
system
of
the
brain,
whereas
the
religious
hypothesis
will
claim
–
depending
on
the
‘religion’
that
consciousness
is
pervasive
and
that
we
exist
within
consciousness,
that
matter
itself
might
be
an
illusion
of
consciousness.
Structure
then
too
might
just
be
an
illusion
of
the
conscious.
Relgious
beliefs
–
comes
in
different
forms
and
there
are
many
different
religious
tenets,
beliefs,
and
hypothesis.
To
make
claim
that
they
are
all
false
or
true
and
can
be
refuted
via
the
belief
of
scientific
fact
is
also
a
lapse
in
logical
and
scientific
rigor.
Buddhist
believes
in
reincarnation,
Christians
do
not-
or
do
not
explore
reincarnation.
The
person
who
believes
in
zeus
might
or
might
not
believe
in
reincarnation,
but
zeus
is
not
Yahweh,
and
Yahweh
is
undefined
qualitatively
and
is
defined
quantitatively.
We
can
only
say
what
‘yahweh’
is
not
and
Yahweh
is
not
even
called
‘yahweh’
–
‘yahweh’
is
merely
a
name
modernists
give
to
the
God
of
Judaism
which
is
only
called
via
a
conceptual
bracket
–
the
true
name
of
the
God
of
Judaism
is
‘I
am
that
I
am’
or
‘I
will
be’
–
then
follows
the
string
of
historical
propositions
–
of
how
he
will
liberate
his
people
from
the
oppression
in
ancient
Egypt
and
deliver
them
to
the
promised
land.
Thus
‘I
am
that
I
am’
is
a
historical
proposition
held
in
a
conceptual
bracket
of
a
name
–
called
‘yahweh’
by
people
who
do
not
read
Judaism-christianity
–
so
when
one
says
I
do
not
believe
in
zeus
and
I
also
do
not
believe
in
‘yahweh’
–
they’re
saying
I
do
not
believe
in
‘I
am
that
I
am’
or
I
do
not
believe
in
the
‘I
am
that
I
am
that
delivers
the
jewish
people
from
slavery
and
brings
them
to
the
promised
land’
a
historical
event
that
happened
with
the
establishment
of
the
jewish
state
past,
present,
and
future.
Thus
when
a
so
called
‘atheist’
comes
and
argue
against
a
word
–
without
arguing
its
true
definition
is
like
a
person
who
sees
a
Japanese-chinese-kanji
‘word
character’
and
says
the
romanized
translation
which
he
doesn’t
really
understand
is
not
true
because
it
is
in
opposition
to
what
he
believes
also
to
be
another
set
of
definitions
of
a
scientific
fact.
It
is
equivalent
to
saying
world
war
1
never
happened
because
the
word
that
is
used
to
stand
in
for
world
war
I,
ww1
is
not
scientifically
true.
The
mismatch
of
definition,
word,
ontology,
and
analysis
renders
all
of
these
statements
as
void.
Thus
if
we
were
to
say
science
refutes
religion
–
we
have
to
be
more
specific
–
which
religion
–
which
fact
in
religion
–
because
religion
is
not
a
method
–
it
is
a
system
of
beliefs;
some
can
be
true,
some
can
be
mythological,
some
can
be
symbolic,
but
it
is
a
system
of
beliefs
and
shared
values
that
holds
a
community
together
and
it
is
predicated
on
a
language
–
in
Hinduism
and
buddhism’s
case,
Sanskrit,
and
in
Judaism’s
case
hebrew,
and
in
Judaism
chrisitianity’s
case
–
hebrew
and
greek
and
latin.
To
make
science
and
religion
comparatives
is
like
comparing
a
stethoscope
to
a
car.
One
is
an
instrument
of
exploration;
the
other
is
a
composite
of
engineering.
They
are
not
one
and
the
same.
God
in
Judaism-christianity-islam
–
has
a
very
precise
definition
–
it
is
defined
precisely
as
‘what
he
is
not’
–
that
is
to
say
so-and-so
is
not
a
sufficient
or
complete
definition
of
God
–
God
is
not
a
tree,
God
is
not
a
giraffe-
God
is
not
the
wind,
nor
is
God
the
water
–
God
includes
and
contains
all
of
these
things
but
these
things
are
insufficient
to
be
God.
God
is
everything
–
is
God
consciousness
–
everything
only
exists
because
there
is
consciousness
to
perceive
it,
so
in
that
sense
the
definition
of
God
necessitates
the
existence
of
consciousness.
‘I
am
that
I
am’
so
God
is
consciousness
‘I
will
be’
God
is
consciousness
moving
through
time.
‘exodus’
point
specific
‘events’
in
history
past-present-future
help
proves
that
validity
not
of
God
but
God’s
relation
to
this
world
–
this
is
an
irrefutable
definition
of
God
–
we
cannot
say
God
does
not
exist
simply
because
the
bible
is
not
scientifically
historically
true
–
in
what
sense
–
we
can
only
say
the
bible
and
its
community
has
definitive
definition
for
what
is
and
isn’t
God
–
and
has
even
set
up
a
commandment
that
says
thou
shalt
not
‘worship’
what
is
not
God
–
God
is
the
consciousness
of
the
totality
that
makes
‘him’self
manifest
in
events
through
time
and
in
history.
Prophets
–
prophets
are
those
who
had
received
a
‘revelation’
a
revealing
of
the
process
of
unfolding
history
from
God.
How
do
we
know
this
prophecy
is
truly
from
God
–
if
it
is
fulfilled
point
relative
in
history
–
through
the
movement
of
events
through
history.
Since
it
is
an
event
in
the
totality
of
the
universe
and
is
not
simply
just
a
singular
in
relation
to
one
person
or
a
group
of
persons
but
point
relative
to
the
movement
of
the
entirety
of
cosmos
and
is
circumstantial
to
history–
then
this
is
a
proof
of
prophecy.
Judaism-christianity-and-islam
is
the
movement
of
consciousness
–
the
consciousness
of
existence
itself
in
relation
to
individuated
consciousness
–
relating
though
the
events
of
human
history
until
it
culminates
to
a
singularity
–
which
is
deemed
the
‘world
to
come’
.
An organizing principle is a core assumption from which everything else by proximity can derive a classification or a value.[1] It is like a central reference point that allows all other objects to be located, often used in a conceptual framework.[1] Having an organizing principle might help one simplify and get a handle on a particularly complicated domain or phenomenon. On the other hand, ... [enter] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_principle
In
Heidegger
on
the
Connection
between
Nihilism,
Art,
Technology
and
Politics,
Dreyfus
wrote,
"Thus
Heidegger
comes
to
see
the
recent
undermining
of
commitment
as
due
not
so
much
to
a
failure
on
the
part
of
the
individual,
as
to
a
lack
of
anything
in
the
modern
world
that
could
solicit
commitment
from
us
and
sustain
us
in
it.
The
things
that
once
evoked
commitment
--gods,
heroes,
the
God-man,
the
acts
of
great
statesmen,
the
words
of
great
thinkers
--
have
lost
their
authority.
As
a
result,
individuals
feel
isolated
and
alienated.
They
feel
that
their
lives
have
no
meaning
because
the
public
world
contains
no
guidelines.
When
everything
that
is
material
and
social
has
become
completely
flat
and
drab,
people
retreat
into
their
private
experiences
as
the
only
remaining
place
to
find
significance.
Heidegger
sees
this
move
to
private
experience
as
characteristic
of
the
modern
age.
Art,
religion,
sex,
education
all
becomes
varieties
of
experiences.
When
all
our
concerns
have
been
reduced
to
the
common
denominator
of
"experience"
we
will
have
reached
the
last
stage
of
nihilism.
One
then
sees
"the
plunge
into
frenzy
and
the
disintegration
into
sheer
feeling
as
redemptive.
The
`lived
experience'
as
such
becomes
decisive.
Now
practices
like
how
far
to
stand
from
people
are
not
all
that
is
passed
on
by
training
and
imitation.
Our
everyday
know-how
involves
an
understanding
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
person,
a
thing,
a
natural
object,
a
plant,
an
animal,
and
so
on.
Our
understanding
of
animals
these
days,
for
example,
is
in
part
embodied
in
our
skill
in
buying
pieces
of
them,
taking
off
their
plastic
wrapping,
and
cooking
them
in
microwave
ovens.
In
general,
we
deal
with
things
as
resources
to
be
used
and
then
disposed
of
when
no
longer
needed.
A
styrofoam
cup
is
a
perfect
example.
When
we
want
a
hot
or
cold
drink
it
does
its
job,
and
when
we
are
through
with
it
we
throw
it
away.
How
different
this
understanding
of
an
object
is
from
what
we
can
suppose
to
be
the
Japanese
understanding
of
a
delicate,
painted
tea
cup,
which
does
not
do
as
good
a
job
of
maintaining
temperature
and
which
has
to
be
washed
and
protected,
but
which
is
preserved
from
generation
to
generation
for
its
beauty
and
its
social
meaning.
Or,
at
the
other
extreme,
an
old
earthenware
mug,
admired
for
its
simplicity
and
its
ability
to
evoke
memories
of
ancient
crafts,
such
as
is
used
in
a
Japanese
tea
ceremony.
It
is
hard
to
picture
a
tea
ceremony
around
a
Styrofoam
cup.
Note
that
an
aspect
of
the
Japanese
understanding
of
what
it
is
to
be
human
(passive,
contented,
gentle,
social,
etc.)
fits
with
an
understanding
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
thing
(evocative
of
simpler
times,
pure,
natural,
simple,
beautiful,
traditional,
etc.).
It
would
make
no
sense
for
us,
who
are
active,
independent,
and
aggressive
--
constantly
striving
to
cultivate
and
satisfy
our
desires
--
to
relate
to
things
the
way
the
Japanese
do;
or
for
the
Japanese
(before
their
understanding
of
being
was
interfered
with
by
ours)
to
invent
and
prefer
styrofoam
teacups.
In
the
same
vein
we
tend
to
think
of
politics
as
the
negotiation
of
individual
desires
while
the
Japanese
seek
consensus.
In
sum,
the
practices
containing
an
understanding
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
human
being,
those
containing
an
interpretation
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
thing,
and
those
defining
society
fit
together.
Social
practices
thus
not
only
transmit
an
implicit
understanding
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
human
being,
an
animal,
or
an
object,
but
finally,
an
understanding
of
what
it
is
for
anything
to
be
at
all.
The
shared
practices
into
which
we
are
socialized,
moreover,
provide
a
background
understanding
of
what
matters
and
what
it
makes
sense
to
do,
on
the
basis
of
which
we
can
direct
our
actions.
This
understanding
of
being
creates
what
Heidegger
calls
a
clearing
in
which
things
and
people
can
show
up
as
mattering
and
meaningful
for
us.
"
-
Dreyfus
...
Dreyfus's
exposition
of
Heidegger's
ex
cogitations
can
be
used
to
unveil
a
fundamental
flaw
in
our
modern
elation
with
technology
and
specifically
information
technology.
Dreyfus's
understanding
of
Heidegger
compels
us
to
think
about
the
short
comings
of
elucidated
grand
ideologies
that
the
internet
as
a
connective
device
will
ultimately
serve
a
redemptive
purpose
for
rescuing
society
from
its
destructive
propensities
and
nihilistic
inclinations.
The
internet
can
not
at
the
end
of
the
day
provide
fuselage
for
social
cohesion
due
to
the
very
non
committal
essence
of
its
nature.
The
internet
is
a
set
of
tools
more
accurately
described
as
a
suite
of
computer
networks
facilitated
via
communication
protocols.
At
best,
it
can
only
emulate
the
current
covenant,
the
marketplace
for
shared
experience,
and
further
enhance
its
transactional
efficacy.
It
is
not
the
committal
redemptive
being
that
its
proponents
has
largely
espoused
it
to
be
for
the
internet
can
only
further
serve
its
purpose
in
enhancing
our
current
cultural
edifices
and
normative.
Internet
does
not
fundamentally
define
or
create
the
social
practices.
It
is
a
an
element
of
utility;
therefore,
serving
functional
purpose
but
does
not
define
our
relation
to
its
function.
Filter
bubbles,
content
cu-ration
tailored
specifically
on
an
individual
basis,
and
suggestive
elements
have
merely
entourage
a
new
level
of
personal
consumption
rather
than
laying
the
foundations
for
a
implicit
new
set
of
social
dynamics.
What
Dreyfus
outlined
is
fundamentally,
without
shared
practices
which
governs
the
background
of
our
understanding,
our
extreme
radical
forms
of
individual
self
expression
can
only
predicate
further
social
disintegration
into
nihilism,
better
enhanced
by
our
faster
and
more
capable
means
of
content
delivery.
Our
existing
foundational
elements
of
technology
further
engages
us
with
passivity
if
passivity
is
our
conduit
of
social
relation
as
observed
on
our
communication
platforms.
By
further
enhancing
our
own
personal
experiences
and
locking
us
within
our
own
content
potency,
the
internet
encourages
our
differentiation
from
others
and
generates
greater
distances
from
the
realization
of
social
commitments.
Within
our
own
bubbles
of
thought,
lays
the
greater
advancements
to
the
valuations
of
modern
vindications.
when
discussing
the
reality
and
accuracy
of
prophetic
statements
we
can
utilise
this
train
of
thought,
we
can
assume
first
that
there
is
nothing
true
in
the
bible,
but
that
simply
can
not
be
because
the
bible
is
a
historical
religious
document,
much
of
it
is
anchored
in
some
documented
or
quasi
documented
version
of
history.
individuals
like
pontius
pilate
are
well
documented
and
have
left
behind
a
great
number
of
historical
artifacts.
given
that
is
fact,
we
can
assume
some
things
at
the
very
least
are
true
about
the
bible.
aiming
for
historical
accuracy
we
say
how
many
of
that
is
true,
assuming
give
or
take
at
least
sixty
percent
of
the
bible
is
historically
accurate,
then
we
can
say
that
there
is
a
tangible
and
solid
historical
basis
for
the
bible.
from
this
angle
on
we
look
at
prophecy
saying
that
prophecy
is
anchored
on
the
historical
basis
of
the
bible
and
makes
a
symbolic
hypothetic
prediction
about
the
course
of
human
history
either
by
divine
or
supernatural
revelation
or
some
kind
of
cognitive
prediction
based
on
a
successful
hunch.
given
those
premises,
we
can
say
that
the
hypothetical
prediction
was
either
mostly
true
or
mostly
false.
to
begin
this
we
can
look
at
what
we
call
definitive
statements,
for
example
statements
similar
to
that
the
entirety
of
the
world
is
on
the
brink
of
destruction
or
that
he
will
unite
all
the
tribes
of
the
earth.
these
are
definitive
and
qualitative
and
can
not
happen
in
any
other
time
period
in
history
except
the
given
present.
if
these
statements
are
true
then
there
is
prediction
success
to
these
statements.
as
jesus
said
i
will
make
you
fishers
of
men
and
153
fish.
or
that
when
lightning
strikes
in
the
east
as
it
does
in
the
west.
or
the
child
that
will
lie
down
with
all
manners
of
beasts
uniting
all
the
tribes
of
the
world.
all
of
these
statements
can
be
verified
with
a
definitive
context.
then
we
can
also
ask
the
question
by
what
process
these
statements
are
fulfilled
to
cross
out
the
possibility
of
conspiratorial
elements.
supposed
some
resourceful
organisation
wanted
to
create
reality
for
the
bible
then
by
conspiratorial
means
help
fulfil
a
prophecy
once
discovered
might
actually
invalidate
the
premise
that
it
was
a
supernatural
fulfilment,
if
such
deliberations
are
not
of
this
kind
of
nature,
given
what
kind
of
organisation
will
bring
the
earth
to
destruction
just
to
fulfil
biblical
prophecy,
highly
unlikely
that
such
an
existential
configuration
would
simply
be
to
service
the
premise
of
religion,
then
it
can
be
said
this
probabilistic
tangent
of
history
given
its
biological
and
environmental
nature
actual
lends
to
the
support
of
some
degree
of
successful
hypothesis
or
precognition
by
means
not
fully
understood
in
the
modern
systems
of
science.
ascertaining
this,
we
can
say
that
the
prophecy
is
indeed
true
or
fulfilled.
then
we
return
back
to
the
bible-
list
every
prophetic
statement
clear
definitive
and
contextual
then
verify
its
nature
as
fulfilled
or
not
fulfilled,
we
can
then
ascertain
the
accuracy
of
faith
and
also
the
things
that
faith
defines.
much
of
isaac
newton’s
work
besides
pioneering
calculus
and
the
fundamental
laws
of
mechanics
was
also
to
ascertain
some
mathematical
determination
to
the
events
premised
in
the
bible
.
what
would
newton
say
about
today
events
and
affairs
and
what
would
newton
say
about
messianic
promises
?
In Christian eschatology, historicism is a method of interpretation of biblical prophecies which associates symbols with historical persons, nations or events. The main primary texts of interest to Christian historicists include apocalyptic literature, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. It sees the prophecies of Daniel as being fulfilled throughout history, extending from ... [enter] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(Christianity)
vote up | down
Historicism - Wikipedia
Historicism is an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history, that is, by studying the process by which they came about. The term is widely used in philosophy, anthropology, and sociology.
This historical approach to explanation differs from and complements the approach known as functio... [enter] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
before
any
arguments
about
religion
can
be
made,
one
must
present
the
issue
of
biblical
interpretation,
that
is
without
a
ascertained
fixed
structural
presentation
of
a
given
system
of
thought,
there
is
no
way
to
present
an
argument
at
all.
that
is
to
say
biblical
interpretation
like
stare
decisis
in
arguments
of
law
creates
the
contextual
boundaries
at
which
a
certain
statement
can
be
argued
upon.
that
being
said,
the
fact
that
the
bible
is
opened
to
the
realm
of
interpretation
also
presents
that
all
arguments
of
the
bible
unlike
statements
and
propositions
in
matters
of
empirical
thought
or
axiomatic
reasoning
resides
within
the
scope
of
interpretation.
one
can
be
quick
to
jump
on
the
following
thought
that
all
matters
biblical
thus
is
interpretative
and
therefore
merely
arguments
made
within
the
scope
and
realms
of
interpretation,
but
that
could
be
far
from
the
truth.
if
the
bible
was
merely
a
series
of
poems
anchored
not
in
time
and
space
but
in
a
metaphorical
reality,
what
is
the
difference
between
the
hebrew
bible
and
tolkien’s
lord
of
the
rings?
thus
there
is
a
substantive
attribution
to
matters
of
biblical
content,
and
one
fairly
obvious
attribution
is
the
historicity
of
the
bible.
that
biblical
events
are
for
the
most
part
a
description
of
actual
historical
events
that
can
be
accurate,
close
to
accurate,
or
not
accurate
at
all.
thus
the
substance
of
biblical
interpretation
must
anchor
itself
within
the
arguments
of
history.
this
applies
to
understandings
of
prophetic
statements
and
also
to
the
premise
at
which
biblical
reasoning
arises
whether
it
be
legalistic
or
the
supernatural.
enormous
amounts
of
time
is
devoted
to
the
tel
dan
stele
arising
from
the
archaeological
history
of
egypt
to
ascertain
the
historical
reality
to
the
family
of
david.
this
very
search
for
such
a
reality
also
comes
with
the
intentions
that
displays
the
political
sphere
of
cultural
manifestation,
arguments
of
which
made,
that
the
search
for
david’s
reality
is
driven
or
motivated
by
political
zionism,
thus
easily
point
case
made
that
political
zionism
was
the
driving
force
of
interpretation,
and
display
cards
of
which
made
to
enforce
zionist
thought.
the
opposite
of
political
zionism
of
course
would
be
the
counter
argument
that
there
was
no
historical
basis
for
jerusalem
other
than
the
mythological
construct
of
the
bible
equivalent
to
the
three
gifting
magi.
all
of
which
returns
back
to
the
premise
of
religious
discussion,
that
will
and
intentionality
can
not
be
sufficient
grounds
of
argument
to
refuse
the
validity
of
religious
points
of
view.
that
is
religion
in
this
case,
abrahamic
faith,
its
legalistic
system,
its
historical
delineation,
its
prophetic
validity,
must
be
verified
if
with
rigor
away
from
the
political
intentions
of
thought.
politics
might
explain
for
intentions,
but
can
not
give
truth
to
archaeological
fact.
that
being
said,
what
statements
can
be
verified
in
religious
thinking
-
namely
primarily
history
and
historical
prophecy.
these
are
matters
anchored
in
a
certain
degree
of
fact.
the
moralistic
thinking
to
be
derived
from
the
history
and
historical
prophecy
that
lends
itself
to
a
rigorous
system
of
practice
and
law
can
be
argued
only
upon
a
differentiating
system
of
values.
history
itself
however,
the
truth
of
it,
can
not
be
easily
denied.
that
being
said,
historical
prophecy
however
and
more
importantly
the
messianic
reality
does
not
necessitate
that
the
historical
situations
presented
by
the
bible
to
be
proven
either
true
or
false.
that
is
to
say
prophetic
statements
can
be
true
even
if
the
historical
story
told
in
the
bible
can
not
be
verified
in
one
way
or
the
other.
an
example
would
be
such,
if
i
made
a
claim
that
within
the
scope
of
a
certain
time
frame,
at
the
said
end
of
human
time,
in
a
time
when
the
human
world
is
confronted
with
an
existential
threat
that
will
completely
annihilate
its
premises
of
existence,
a
child
is
to
be
born
into
the
world
that
will
rescue
it
from
its
demise.
that
is
to
one
make
an
argument
about
a
future
human
history
at
which
such
a
event
will
happen.
even
if
what
is
said
about
moses
can
not
be
proven
to
be
true
or
not
true,
the
statement
of
the
apocalypse
and
the
conditions
of
the
child
can
be
proven
to
be
true
or
not
true
by
simply
the
accuracy
of
such
said
prophetic
statements.
to
be
more
rigorous,
at
time
a,
there
will
arise
event
n,
with
such
a
person
d.
given
that
time
a
and
event
n
can
not
be
situated
in
any
other
point
and
time
in
history,
then
there
is
a
certain
level
of
historicity
that
restricts
the
grounds
of
interpretation.
thus
the
bible
unlike
the
lord
of
the
rings
has
arguments
anchored
in
past
history
and
historical
prediction
grounds
of
which
can
be
fairly
rigid.
unlike
lord
of
the
rings
and
unicorns,
biblical
events,
figures,
and
their
aforementioned
prediction
are
historical
and
historically
real
in
its
nature.
it
is
often
used
as
a
tactic
for
one
group
of
people
to
delegitimise
the
historical
claims
of
another
group
of
people
by
simply
saying
that
a
massacre
did
not
happen
or
that
there
was
never
any
true
historical
claim
to
a
piece
of
land.
all
of
which
are
statements
and
methods
utilised
to
discount
or
to
deny
the
political
right
of
a
group.
arguments
against
the
political
basis
of
zionism
have
often
straight
out
attacked
the
premise
of
the
historicity
of
the
bible
or
that
there
is
no
basis
to
any
of
its
so
called
historical
reality.
arguments
of
white
supremacy
have
denied
that
there
was
rape
and
abuse
to
african
slaves
and
called
the
belief
of
slavery
a
belief
of
unicorns
and
mythological
creatures.
some
even
as
go
as
far
to
say
that
jews
willingly
stepped
into
gas
chambers
under
a
historical
enactment
as
a
grand
conspiracy
of
some
kind
as
that
the
jews
murdered
themselves.
that
being
said,
this
is
not
an
argument
about
politics,
but
demonstrates
that
political
will
and
intentions
can
not
be
included
in
the
arguments
of
the
truth
of
something,
veracity
of
which
is
dependent
upon
the
actuality
of
the
truth.
biblical
fact,
and
even
reality
of
biblical
prophecy
has
to
be
predicated
on
a
more
fundamental
basis
of
argument,
that
is
first
to
acknowledge
that
the
bible
to
a
certain
extent
is
historically
true,
and
that
its
prophetic
claims
are
historical
and
factually
ascertainable
claims.
that
being
said,
it
is
often
mistaken
and
confused
to
think
matters
of
buddhism,
hinduism,
and
other
so
called
religious
systems
of
thinking
as
one
and
the
same
and
therefore
give
rise
to
the
same
type
of
empiricism.