RaajShinde wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:00 pm
pogmoor wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:41 pm
Jeffrey Armbruster wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:37 pm
I think that RaajShinde's point is that eugenics and even today's alt-right notions on race claim to be science based, even though actual science doesn't bear out those claims...
This discussion is getting off the point and straying close to political topics. Remember these are forbidden!
Thanks for the reminder! In this day and age it is very easy to get into discussions on politics. However, it was not my intent to go there. I was just trying to make the point that connecting higher cerebral function, if I might call it that, to our genes is a dangerous idea that can lead to terrible consequences, if taken too far. I thought one of the argument in this thread, that creativity is a function of genetic heritage is not an idea that, to the best of my knowledge, has support in any scientific basis. I could be wrong and am happy to be educated if so.
"creativity is more than likely a function of consciousness and that consciousness is perhaps shaped by environmental stimuli"
Wu wei ... - isn't it achieving something without effort? naturally?
but could one achieve something naturally if it is not inside of him already?
if the best way to achieving something - is doing nothing and effortlessly, then how one who agree with it could claim that to achieve something one could consciously, therefore rationally, therefore applying efforts, work to achieve it?
how one could achieve something when all "environment" totally against him?
and shouldn't two things come together for?
rational and irrational?
hard. conscious, rational work and sub conscious inspiration and creativity?
could one obtain irrational by rational means?
by doing nothing?
or maybe we have to give creativity naturally come through and we will just record it, rather than trying rationally achieve it?