E. O. Wilson | The Meaning of Human Existence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2019
- Recorded Oct 28, 2014
Esteemed biologist E. O. Wilson’s ideas have had an immeasurable influence on our understanding of life, nature, and society. The author of more than 25 books, including two Pulitzer Prize-winning works of nonfiction, Wilson has won a raft of scientific and conservation prizes, including the prestigious National Medal of Science. He remains an outspoken advocate for conservation and biodiversity, fighting to preserve the wondrous variety of the natural world. His writing explores the world of ants and other tiny creatures, illuminating how all creatures great and small are interdependent. In his new book, he bridges science and philosophy to create a 21st-century treatise on human existence.
In conversation with Dr. Ian G. Sheffer
He was my favorite contemporary until he passed just a few weeks ago my heart is broken and I will miss him so much ✨
A life well lived a true giant of science
I must apologize to Alabama. I used to think Alabama has not contributed any special scientists, inventors, etc.
After Dr. Wilson passed away, I learned that Alabama seems to have produced the greatest modern scientist on earth.
So grateful for his hard work and out-of-the-box thinking.
Even as he was associated with U of Florida, another great, Archie Carr , also out of Alabama...
Thank you for the kind words, but in general, many educated people have looked down on Alabama and all the southern states and placed all southerners in one big box, actually we are a pretty diverse group of people. RTR
Mind blowing man… a true genius
Genius, love this guy.
I appreciated the challenge in this book to my own fuzzy “Something Out There” form of faith. I found CS Lewis’ treatise on inherent morality deeply persuasive, but then, I am precisely one who “tends to be unconscious of prehistory.”
Proving the existence of inherent morality is not equivalent to a proof of God (nor would a proof of God be equivalent to proof of a Christian God). If our in-built morality can be just as (or more) easily explained by human instinct brought about through biological evolution, am I not obliged to consider that likelihood?
Perhaps the time has come to shift my focus from the highly entertaining philosophical inquiry of meaning to a biological science-based exploration…
(Side thought, how is it that I am unbothered by uncertainty? This chapter deals with the tribalism of faith; under what circumstances might I, too, feel the need to “know”?)
I read most of his books....what a great thinker and a man persistent in discovery and study.....
He will be so missed
He has some great books
I have one critique on the denotation of faith (circa 8 minutes):
The absolute value of Faith is believing that the experience of existence is good, despite all other evidence. It is the hole at the bottom of science that must exist. Without it, science would not exist on its own accord.
In summary, no other belief is necessary than this:
Existence is good, despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Conscience is the source of our creativity."
🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐
33:10 This is it. This is the prime directive! Finally made my time watching this worth it. And how to you do that? STAY AT HOME! No more frivolous ego traveling. No more commuting. Live in a studio, small space. Walk to work (pay workers sufficiently so they can live near work) The answer is not greenwash solutions like electric cars, solar, windturbines (fools gold). It means USE LESS. Eliminate consumptive fashion. Take a shower every 5 days for most non-laborious jobs. Grow a garden. Build skyscrapers no more single family homes locusting all over the land. It isn't the fossil fuel companies to blame, it's YOU, it's your ego. Otherwise watch the world go up in flames. The GREAT EXTINCTION is at our door.
Contraddictoire la nature humaine
Tu veux dire quoi ?
24:00 "Never" is a word that should almost "Never" be used. It is dismissive and closes the door. It is "tribal." I am becoming less impressed with this guy. By discounting any person with the word "never," I wonder if he really understood how dangerous that is to discovery. Everyone has value and by turning your back with "never" you almost "never" will come up with a good result. He could have used "generally." A perfect example of why not to buy into the "tribalism" and instead create your own inclusive, individual philosophy.
7:40 Faith can also be seen as technological determinism, today, which is an outcome of scientific arrogance.