Chefelf.com Night Life: The human condition. - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

The human condition.

#46 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:36 AM

QUOTE
Jm, good on you to bring the grasshoppers and the Electric eels into this.


Remember Civ, grasshoppers and electric eels are now, as an old friend would say " brought into the debate" so expect to spend the next six pages arguing about their communalist societies.

I'm sure my animal analogy could bring up problems, since animals do not always live in harmonious communities, and this will be blamed upon a lack of ethics which are borne from religions which animals may or may not have depending on what some wolves say. However, I think that most of the time animal societies exist fairly peacefully. There is competition sometimes for resources, but that's true of human society too. To strip all ethics away would be truely bad for the species. It wouldnt create a sort of natural selection thing and make the human race stronger. That's because we are social animals and need others of our kind to be effective. And to have others around you you have to have ethics.

And finally, on the domestication of man:

If man was "domesticated" 10000 years ago, why is he still not house broken?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 29 April 2008 - 02:38 AM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#47 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:16 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 29 2008, 08:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Biologically, humans are a social species. Infant humans take longer to make it to adulthood than any other mammal, and are completely dependent on their parents as well as other adults for at least 5 years. Humans have always been domesticated, because the ape-like species they evolved from was already domesticated. They are not unique in the animal kingdom for this. Wolves, hyenas, elephants, all primates, etc are already domesticated. Even the big cats have a kind of community; when an alpha meets another alpha, it is not always a fight to the death. We have zero evidence that apes or big cats worship gods, and I won't entertain the notion. So no, it was not religion that domesticated people. It wasn't ethics, neither, but a survival necessity. Also, our big brains make us want to be around others of our kind, for entertainment, but that's another story. Anyway, community has to exist before any code of common ethics, and both will probably exist before communication (not necessarily language). Communication is necessary for religion, unless you believe that religion was created by actual Gods who did not require that humans were able to communicate the concepts of the religion to one another. I won't entertain that notion either.

To directly answer the question above, yes, a common goal such as herding pigs or tending crops would be enough to convince people to behave ethically toward one another. You don't need to add an extra level such as fear of God or the Afterlife when something as simple as survival necessity, complicated as well by the enjoyment of another's company, is already there. But to answer your question indirectly, standards of behaviour were in place well before the pigs-and-crops phase.

Your question about how can societies in ONE COUNTRY be different from societies in ANOTHER COUNTRY is deliberately ignorant of my entire post. Yes, if we go back 2000 years, and visit Italy, the most powerful nation in the Western World, we can see a slave-owning, elitist, violent culture worshipping multiple gods and demanding that conquered nations revere its emperors themselves as gods. The conquer-and-plunder ethics of that society determined the religious practices of those people. Its style of religion was a product of its style of government. Meanwhile, something similarly feudal but in many ways different was going on in Japan, a place with which IT HAD NO CONTACT. Yes, societies form differently in different places, and as such they develop different religions. Your question asked about diverse peoples in different places separated by geography and not shariung a common language. The examples I cited in my post were of people all living in one place and speaking to one another all the time. So I fail to be convinced by your deliberate misreading of my post.

Getting back to my post, the religion of the old Roman Empire is gone. It has no place in our current society. The religion of those Japanese is still with us. more or less. You asked me to compare various world religions, presumably to show that people all over the world are different. Since that has nothing to do with what I am saying, I declined. Instead I visited websites created by North Americans and read what they had to say about their religions as they existed in North America. Those various and diverse religions as they exist in North America are ethically similar. Perhaps Confucianism is a horse of a different colour in China, but here it's ethically quite similar to the "Do as you would have done" ethics of all religions in North America. This, again, is because the religions have adapted to meet the cultural standards of North America.

Thought experiment: Imagine a group of people right now trying to establish a virgin-raping, human-sacrificing, monkey-brain-eating cult whose mandate was to burn public property that it believed was owned by its gods. How long do you think it would take for that religion to completely change North American culture so that we all thought that was the ethical standard? Or say, try to imagine a group trying to establish into law the right for grown men to fuck young boys, like they did back in the Classical period? When will society get off its high horse and respect the religious or philosophical freedoms of its diverse people? (Hint: never. Society will tolerate religion and philosophy so long as the religion or the philosophy conforms to its ethics. Hint2: the first example was just nonsense, so don't look for a real world equivalent.)

Honestly, Deucaon, and I hope this sounds like an ultimatum, if you don't agree with me, that's fine. But trying to frame it as though you don't understand me, deliberatley ignoring the points I have clearly made, is irksome. If you are sure that religion came first, then ethics, and then people began living in community, well there's nothing I can do about that. You're entirely wrong since communication is required for a common religion, so society naturally needed to come first, but I'm not going to say that again. If you're sure that you're right about this, please tell people elsewhere on the internet about it, and see what they have to say. You have no converts or fellow-thinkers here.

We all get it. I am not convinced that you don't believe in God, but who cares? You are certain, and there is to be no doubt, that it is belief in God that has been singularly responsible for creating order in human society instead of Chaos. Oddly enough, you also believe that it only by challenging order that human society has ever changed. So you think that ethics are responsible not only for allowing society to exist but also for challenging its growth.

You bring up honour and decency, and say that they are born from fear. I say nay nay. Honourable, decent guys are reliable, and as such they get hired for important jobs. The boldest warrior or largest bully in the world can only get so far on cracking skulls before a hundred snivelling weaklings make a trophy of his spine. Community, communication, and a desire for positive feedback from other living, breathing human beings makes people act decently toward one another. I doubt most people think of God on a regular basis. Your certainty that somewhere in the back of their minds is a fear that God will get them if they aren't nice to people, well that's your own religious bugaboo. I don't try to deny that religion has been with us a long time, but no way will I imagine that it's the source of decency. At best, again, I will say tat religion is a product of society, and in some societies religious groups have had the power of politicians. But no way is decency all about fear; the majority of it is the good feeling folks get when others praise them for their good work, or thank them for their help, or in many cases, actually reward them. You will find if you have pets or kids that positive feedback is better than negative feedback in training them. It's community and communication, a desire for immediate positive feedback, that makes folks behave as they do, not fear of punishment. That and the evolution of a survival necessity born from the fact that we are so utterly helpless in our infant years.

If you have something new to say on this Howard Roarke-styled, abandon-religion-forced-ethics -as-only-tool-for-social-progress, please do. I still don't see that course as anything more than an exception. As I view history, the majority of social change has come about through communication, acting in community, and group decisions. Resistance to change has occasionally been unethical, but the majority of the change itself has come about ethically. But I will concede at the very least that this is a potentially interesting discussion. The discussion of which came first, Religion or Ethics? is turning into a skipped record.


This was less of a debate and more of a lecture. Unfortunately it took a few days for me to provoke you into explaining your theory fully after it was clear that no one would talk unless I gave them something to work with but it has been worthwhile. I was sincere about trying to understand the origins of ethics and how ethics effect human endeavour so I gave you a theory full of holes. Thankyou for teaching.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 29 2008, 08:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And while you're at it, define "progress." I just see that societies change, but there's some old world idea that change is part of some path toward greater complexity or to some other positively-charged notion of superiority. This notion is at the heart of the popular understanding of evolutionary mechanics as well, and is a part of that big argument. Well, for that to be the case, then there needs to be an end goal of the change, and then you're bringing in a Master Plan, maybe an Intelligent Designer, all that jazz. All of that stuff is religious, and I don't believe in God, so it sounds unconvincing at best and possibly silly. As I see it, societies change, and they change their ethics and they change their religions. Often these changes come with changes in geography, with comfort and wealth, with industry and technology, etc. To say that religious forces mandated all of these changes requires a pretty strong argument. You could use the US Civil War in your argument, where Democracies on both sides sang hymns to the same God and yet so fundamentally disagreed on the subject of State Rights and Human Slavery that they divided families and murdered one another by the thousands. I'd be curious to see what you had to say about that.


I don't know what progress is. Explain to me what you think societal/ethical progress is.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#48 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 April 2008 - 04:05 AM

Well, ok. I didn't expect such a complete reverasal, but I should warn you that I have been around the Internet for some time. As such, I have seen the "I intentionally gave an incomplete representation of my opinion and/or I was kidding in order to draw you out" tactic before. A better assessment would be "Well I hadn't really thought everything through, I just read THE FOUNTAINHEAD and it turned me into an asshole, but I am better now." It's not entirely uncommon among sophomores who encounter Ayn Rand for the first time, and yeah, most of them get over it. As for what a lecture that turned out to be, I was only repeating things I had already said in other ways previously, so yeah, you caught me being more preachy, but I think you asked for it tongue.gif

I am *mostly* just kidding above, but yes, I have seen that sort of reversal before, because I am an entirely online entity created in a lab in the days of Usenet and I have seen it all. Were I not such a nice spambot, I might really call you on it, but instead I'll just give you a warning and the benefit of the doubt.

Progress: Technically the word just means movement, but that's etymology. According to dictionaries and common usage, it is movement toward a goal. So when you say that human culture is "progressing," you will, like it or not, include the implication that there is a goal to social change. This is a nice enough way to think, if you simply think that we should be a certain way and you think that we are on our way there. But in terms of comparing one culture with another, this sort of thinking is often used to suggest that our culture is "developed" and that nations unlike ours are "undeveloped." When viewed in terms of contemporary environmental and economic realities, this is a kind of bigotry. I say this because the planet cannot afford every society living as ours does. So saying we are developed and others aren't is a kind of smug bullying. In terms of simple philosophy, there is also the assumption that we are better and smarter than the Classical Romans and Greeks. While in terms of technology we are certainly more efficient, the argument really needs to be made that we are better at taking care of our populations than they were. I think we're on par, but with slightly longer lifespans for the rich, and dramatically longer lifespans for the poor. We have achieved this partly with medical development but largely by outsourcing our scut work to the Third World rather than having slaves of our own.

Anyway, that's all I mean by "progress." I consider it a charged word in this sort of conversation, especially when religion gets into it, because notions of growth toward a goal often imply a Divine guiding hand.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 29 April 2008 - 04:11 AM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#49 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 29 April 2008 - 05:51 AM

So society can only progress/advance/improve if it has an objective. Perfect analysis of society if you ask me.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 29 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As for what a lecture that turned out to be, I was only repeating things I had already said in other ways previously, so yeah, you caught me being more preachy, but I think you asked for it tongue.gif


That I did.

laugh.gif
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#50 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 April 2008 - 07:48 AM

QUOTE
So society can only progress/advance/improve if it has an objective. Perfect analysis of society if you ask me.

Well, I didn't ask you, and that's a misleading way of reading what I did say. We as a society could outlaw gun ownership and as a result we could find that we were suddenly able to cure cancer and build a self-sustaining colony on Mars. We might not have guessed how those things might have been related (and don't ask me how they might be), yet there we would have extended lives, reduced suffering and enabled humanity to spread itself off-planet. Society may CHANGE, and it soes change constantly, with or without a goal (I think society is too large to be said to have common goals, even with the strictest and most singular leadership).

Society can progress/advance/improve without any objective. I just don't like those terms as much as I like "change," but I wouldn't utterly deny another's use of them. I was only nitpicking regarding the use of the word "progress" since it frequently has religious connotations (hard to avoid, what with being in the title of the second-best-selling book in the English langauge, a morality tale about Christianity), and becuase your questons and arguments had so many references to religion in them.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#51 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 29 April 2008 - 08:22 AM

I for one don't think about "religion" when I hear the word "progress". What books is that?

Lets forget about religion and superstition all together and concentrate on their opposites: science. Do you think humanity would have put a man on the moon 50 years after the first aircraft was built if it hadn't been for the two world wars?
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#52 User is offline   Casual Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 28-December 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That place thats close to the thing you know the one
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2008 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Deucaon @ Apr 29 2008, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do you think humanity would have put a man on the moon 50 years after the first aircraft was built if it hadn't been for the two world wars?


There's no question about that, no. Both the American and Russian space programmes were a direct result of the German V2 rocket and its no secret both sides started grabbing German rocket scientists at the end of the war. We also wouldn't have jet engines, nuclear power or computers either, everyone knows nothing speeds up technology development like a good old fashioned war/ arms race. Its like the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention".

QUOTE (arien @ Jun 29 2008, 03:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So this baby, while still inside its mother, murdered his twin brother and STOLE HIS PENIS.

That is one badass baby.

0

#53 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

Pilgrim's Progress?? Is that really the second most selling book (in the English language)? I would have thought something would have beaten it by now. Harry Potter, even. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 29 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#54 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:38 PM

Blargh. It's fun to watch another person's debate slowly crumble under the pressure of logic and intellectual opposition, but to watch it fold up and speed off in a hover jet isnt any good at all.

As for this business about the space race, no. Soviet-US competition is what set the grounds for space travel as well as war time technology advances by all 3 amjor combatants in ww2. This no doubt is a tactic to get us to admit that competition and not working together spur more human progress than unity and ethical behavior. Well, alright. But I could settle for only getting to the moon in 2010 but having six million Jews still be alive. I think that's more than a fair trade off.

As for the overall argument that shedding ethics could make society better, I think I could have disproved it with a lot less words than Civ by using a simple experiment. Ethics dictate that it would be wrong for me to post Seaquest DSV furry slash fiction in whole or in part. I will shed these ethics. Let me know if the excerpt below, taken from "The beardy guy turns into a fox and has sex with that Lucas kid" changes society for the better.

"and so captain bridger wiggled his whiskers and then they had sex, trying to keep all of the fur from getting in the way. Lucas Wallencheck knew that it could not last: Soon he would have to stop the encounter and tend to that stupid dolphin that could talk, only the dolphin had also turned into a platypus and was swimming around the pool that was originally meant for dolphins. The platypus that had been a dolphin wished it could still leap into the air like it had, but for now it as a platypus and would have to wait until the marmot-lucas helped it out of its enclosure so it might employ its venomous barbs on captain bridgers fluffy backside"

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#55 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Apr 30 2008, 05:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Blargh. It's fun to watch another person's debate slowly crumble under the pressure of logic and intellectual opposition, but to watch it fold up and speed off in a hover jet isnt any good at all.

As for this business about the space race, no. Soviet-US competition is what set the grounds for space travel as well as war time technology advances by all 3 amjor combatants in ww2. This no doubt is a tactic to get us to admit that competition and not working together spur more human progress than unity and ethical behavior. Well, alright. But I could settle for only getting to the moon in 2010 but having six million Jews still be alive. I think that's more than a fair trade off.

As for the overall argument that shedding ethics could make society better, I think I could have disproved it with a lot less words than Civ by using a simple experiment. Ethics dictate that it would be wrong for me to post Seaquest DSV furry slash fiction in whole or in part. I will shed these ethics. Let me know if the excerpt below, taken from "The beardy guy turns into a fox and has sex with that Lucas kid" changes society for the better.

"and so captain bridger wiggled his whiskers and then they had sex, trying to keep all of the fur from getting in the way. Lucas Wallencheck knew that it could not last: Soon he would have to stop the encounter and tend to that stupid dolphin that could talk, only the dolphin had also turned into a platypus and was swimming around the pool that was originally meant for dolphins. The platypus that had been a dolphin wished it could still leap into the air like it had, but for now it as a platypus and would have to wait until the marmot-lucas helped it out of its enclosure so it might employ its venomous barbs on captain bridgers fluffy backside"


The debate is now about science being advanced rapidly when society has an objective. I think that has little to do with whatever your babbling on about.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#56 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:37 PM

You dont need to quote my entire post. It's right above yours. I think people can find it. Your two line reply to a three paragraph post is a bit of an insult, especially sense one of the paragraphs addressed the current topic and the other two address a topic which had alredy been under discussion until you conveniently dictated a change in topics.

This "Deuacon quizzes the world on fairly obvious questions, then ignores peoples answers, then admits his theories are crazy, then makes up another topic with a fairly obvious answer" format is not something I dig. A debate is a two way street. Everyone here fairly patiently humored your attempt to answer a terribly easy question through forcing us to argue in favor of the easy and correct answer. Could that objective have been better gained by going to wikipedia or google? Yes.

But that's fine, everyone is free to ask silly questions that boil down to 'What came first, the chicken or buffalo wings? I think it was buffalo wings". You're even (narrowly) allowed to claim once concrete explanations have been provided of why you're dead wrong, that you were just fishing for information. What you're not free to do is tell people what debate topics we can and cannot address.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 29 April 2008 - 04:04 PM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#57 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:07 PM

Deucaon, I don't think society had the objective of getting to the moon when it started WWI and WWII. That's a great example of how something came about because of something else. WWI and WWII technological advances were almost entirely military in nature, while the moon landing was exploratory. As it happens, one of the military goals was a long-range delivery system for explosives. The rockets that came from this advanced the science of flight.

Once the groundwork had been done, military science was at work on making faster places for long-range delivery of troops and supplies (as well as explosives), and for jet fighter craft. Someone noted that these advances made it possible to put stuff in orbit, and the idea of satellites for communication (and the fanciful notion of weapons delivery systems) came into play. So we started putting stuff in space. This led naturally to the race to landing something on the moon. It was only after the bulk of the technology had already been worked out for more practical applications that we started working on that moon thing.

Yes, none of this would have happened without military competition, but the military competition did not have as its original stated goal the idea of getting to the moon. I'd say therefore it can't exactly be called an "objective." HOWEVER, in general that just makes reasonable sense: if you are just putzing around with stuff, you're probably going to discover or invent less than when you actually have a purpose (and oodles of funding). So an opbjective helps, sure, even if the technological discoveries that led to the moon landing weren't objective-derived.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size