|
On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 23:16 Pandain wrote:Perhaps you should offer someeone to refute your presentation of objectivism. So offer a piece of evidence and then debate from there, not the whole objecctivism.
For example, is is easier to say "Prove that God doesnn't exist." then to prove that god exists.
So first prove objectivism exists and then go from there. For me to present Objectivism, would be meaningless. Not only am I seriously doubtful of my ability to properly present Objectivism, I have no desire to. The truth of Objectivism is axiomatic. There's a good quote from Rand (gee, I wonder why the creator of the philosophy would have something good to say about it), explaining how on can only argue against the validity of the axioms purposed by Objectivism by using said axioms as the basis of their argument. Besides, I am not here to waste time by mincing semantics with people on the internet. This is a thread on philosophy. Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. It's up to the individual to see as far as they can. Some people cannot see far enough, that's called the bell curve. On July 15 2010 00:13 parasaurolophus wrote:
You should listen to Daimon, he just owned you pretty hard, you should probably beg for his forgiveness too right about now. Hmm, some random insult from some random scrub who doesn't even understand how I'm right. Yeah, I'll definitely listen to you. (And people think the "cultists of Rand" are unsavoury characters) On July 15 2010 00:41 Drunken.Jedi wrote:I may have slightly oversimplified Objectivist ethics, but the assumption that initiating violence is (almost) always unethical is still at the very centre of Objectivist ethics. In the one page summary that you linked, Rand herself writes that "no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."
You still have done nothing to show why this assumption is true.
You are mistaken. First, the idea that "might makes right" is discussed in depth in Atlas Shrugged. It is not an "assumption," it is a logical proof. Second, the idea of non-violence is not the centre of Objectivism. It is simply a proof. Rational behaviour does not require violence. Might makes right is an accepted logical fallacy after all. On July 15 2010 01:41 Usyless wrote:Ayn Rand is pretty well-known for drawing positively ridiculous inferences from her "axioms". Her moves from trivialities like A=A to political or moral conclusions are chock full of embarrassing non-sequiturs. Similarly, her attempt to justify libertarianism out of basically egoist principles makes some pretty basic errors. Consequently, she isn't taken seriously in philosophy, though she retains a really obnoxious and dogmatic cult (as we can see in this thread). Here's a good critique of Rand that gives her way more credit than she deserves. http://reocities.com/amosapient/rand.htmlIf one wants to read about a sort of neo-aristotelian individualistic egoism it's better to go to Nietzsche, and if one wants a competent defense of libertarianism, it's better to go to someone like Robert Nozick or Jan Narveson. She's also a terrible, bombastic writer but that's neither here nor there. I consider myself to be poorly educated on the subject of how Rand is perceived. I would greatly enjoy if you could provide some sources for these "non-sequiturs" and the "positively ridiculous inferences." As for the link you provided, I will be quite honest: I read that quite some time ago and my recollection tells me that it was another ridiculously flawed argument. Also, the "Rand's case for libertarian rights consists of two phases." (Line 12) automatically invalidates the article. Rand did not support libertarianism. (afaik) On July 15 2010 02:17 XeliN wrote:
Rand struck me as an assertive person, the type who typically tries to lead and impose their rhetoric on weak followers.
This is entirely from reading about her on wikipedia and admittedly I have never come across her work, although I have never even heard her mentioned in my philosophy classes. The wise man does not judge when he has no information. On July 15 2010 02:21 Usyless wrote:Pretty much.
Rand makes logicians cry. But what do logicians know about logic?
And what do you know about logic? (This is a rhetorical question.) The problem with Rand, is that she is correct. The reason why this is a problem, is very simple. Much like how a high-school student does not easily comprehend (if at all) a 5th year university math exam, the "average" person does not easily comprehend "higher level logic." (I don't really have a better term off the top of my head.) As convenient as it is for a person to believe their capacity to think is unequaled (or equal to everyone else's), a simply objective observation of the psychology of an "average" person when faced with Objectivism reveals that people, just like in everything else, are not all equal thinkers. Sigh, an now an analogy because of this fact: I'm pretty sure no one will disagree with me that if they train at Starcraft everyday for the next X years, they will not be as good as Flash or <insert progamer here>. All people are capable of different things, to different levels of competence. Thinking is no exception.
As much as Rand railed against the libertarian movement of her day, which I believe was largely Rothbardian, Rand's political philosophy is libertarian. That is, she believes in a minimal state with little interference in the economy or people's lives.
I don't know what to say about your rambling about "higher level logic". I'm sure, like Rand, you don't understand what logic is or how it works. I would challenge you to formalize inthe language of symbolic logic (or heck, quasi-formalize in ordinary language) the argument Rand tries to make based on the law of identity, so we could see the inferential principles at work to see if it's valid, but obviously if you were capable of doing that you'd have already seen that it's not. Feel free to try anyway (yeah right).
You're right that some people are better at logic and thinking than others - in particular, logicians and philosophers are better at logic and thinking than the average Joe. And the consensus among them is that Rand couldn't string a decent argument together if her life depended on it.
I've run into Randians before so I know the next thing you want to say is about professional philosophers and logicians being "ivory tower intellectuals" who just don't understand their own fields so I'll chuckle in advance.
Edit: Also it helps if you actually come up with cogent criticisms of the piece I linked to instead of just railing on about how bad it is. But that again would ask too much of you, I'm sure.
|
United States41965 Posts
On July 15 2010 05:12 AncienTs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions then how do you explain cell apoptosis? why are we programmed to die?
Isn't the removal of previous generations kind of a prerequisite for the success of later generations which is in turn what we call evolution.
|
I am a philosophy minor/mathematics major, and I can tell you that modern philosophers all agree that the best "bang for your buck" in happiness is new experiences or knowledge. Education really is a vital part of our lives, as without it we would be back in the cave.
edit - education makes u happy
|
On July 15 2010 05:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 05:12 AncienTs wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions then how do you explain cell apoptosis? why are we programmed to die? Isn't the removal of previous generations kind of a prerequisite for the success of later generations which is in turn what we call evolution.
Perservation of your consciousness is reason you die so quickly compared to your past, magnetic centres not in alignment causes the deteriation of cells as can not electromagnetic regenerate.
Think of your body as made of frequecys of the em spectrum call it light if want that it power supply it determined by it magnetic resonance so if your not in proper balance your powersupply is not permant, the programs that genetically cause death as represented as cell apoptosis are actually specific frequecys.
|
On July 14 2010 17:51 EdaPoe wrote:What is the point of life ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_SisyphusWhat can bring you lasting happiness ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IdiotWhat are your most important values ? Never thought of making a list, need to work on it i guess more. What is good and what is evil ? Humans What is Wisdom ? Ability to think critically and responsible What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like ? Socrates , Plato, Aristotle, Søren Kierkegaard, Gautama Buddha, Jean-Paul Satre, Bernard Russel, Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bill Hicks, Robert C Solomon, Noam Chomsky.
I LOVE The Idiot. I love anything by the big D.
but that's quite a list of philosophers and thinkers you like. Get them in a room and they would be at each other's throats within minutes. Wouldn't wanna be in your head.
I like your mention of Solomon too, that guy had an amazing voice.
(btw it's Bertrand Russel)
On July 15 2010 05:26 Surrealz wrote:
I am a philosophy minor/mathematics major, and I can tell you that modern philosophers all agree that the best "bang for your buck" in happiness is new experiences or knowledge. Education really is a vital part of our lives, as without it we would be back in the cave.
edit - education makes u happy
I have to raise you an eyebrow here. I don't know that philosophers of any epoch agree on anything. To suggest any sort of unanimity in philosophy is symptomatic of lacking philosophic culture. Not saying that's the case with you but it doesn't smell good.
|
On July 15 2010 05:10 Jazriel wrote:
It was a weak analogy, to be sure.
A better analogy would be that a person born without legs cannot walk. Prosthetics aside.
Its still weak. How many people are born without legs, in the grand scheme of things? A tiny number.
My issue with Rand isn't so much in her conclusions but in flawed methodology. You can effectively set out and support a strictly libertarian philosophy without reference to subjective ethical claims at any point - and, indeed, without use of contestable axioms. You just have to have the balls to follow logic where it takes you.
|
On July 15 2010 05:19 Usyless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 23:16 Pandain wrote:Perhaps you should offer someeone to refute your presentation of objectivism. So offer a piece of evidence and then debate from there, not the whole objecctivism.
For example, is is easier to say "Prove that God doesnn't exist." then to prove that god exists.
So first prove objectivism exists and then go from there. For me to present Objectivism, would be meaningless. Not only am I seriously doubtful of my ability to properly present Objectivism, I have no desire to. The truth of Objectivism is axiomatic. There's a good quote from Rand (gee, I wonder why the creator of the philosophy would have something good to say about it), explaining how on can only argue against the validity of the axioms purposed by Objectivism by using said axioms as the basis of their argument. Besides, I am not here to waste time by mincing semantics with people on the internet. This is a thread on philosophy. Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. It's up to the individual to see as far as they can. Some people cannot see far enough, that's called the bell curve. On July 15 2010 00:13 parasaurolophus wrote:
You should listen to Daimon, he just owned you pretty hard, you should probably beg for his forgiveness too right about now. Hmm, some random insult from some random scrub who doesn't even understand how I'm right. Yeah, I'll definitely listen to you. (And people think the "cultists of Rand" are unsavoury characters) On July 15 2010 00:41 Drunken.Jedi wrote:I may have slightly oversimplified Objectivist ethics, but the assumption that initiating violence is (almost) always unethical is still at the very centre of Objectivist ethics. In the one page summary that you linked, Rand herself writes that "no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."
You still have done nothing to show why this assumption is true.
You are mistaken. First, the idea that "might makes right" is discussed in depth in Atlas Shrugged. It is not an "assumption," it is a logical proof. Second, the idea of non-violence is not the centre of Objectivism. It is simply a proof. Rational behaviour does not require violence. Might makes right is an accepted logical fallacy after all. On July 15 2010 01:41 Usyless wrote:Ayn Rand is pretty well-known for drawing positively ridiculous inferences from her "axioms". Her moves from trivialities like A=A to political or moral conclusions are chock full of embarrassing non-sequiturs. Similarly, her attempt to justify libertarianism out of basically egoist principles makes some pretty basic errors. Consequently, she isn't taken seriously in philosophy, though she retains a really obnoxious and dogmatic cult (as we can see in this thread). Here's a good critique of Rand that gives her way more credit than she deserves. http://reocities.com/amosapient/rand.htmlIf one wants to read about a sort of neo-aristotelian individualistic egoism it's better to go to Nietzsche, and if one wants a competent defense of libertarianism, it's better to go to someone like Robert Nozick or Jan Narveson. She's also a terrible, bombastic writer but that's neither here nor there. I consider myself to be poorly educated on the subject of how Rand is perceived. I would greatly enjoy if you could provide some sources for these "non-sequiturs" and the "positively ridiculous inferences." As for the link you provided, I will be quite honest: I read that quite some time ago and my recollection tells me that it was another ridiculously flawed argument. Also, the "Rand's case for libertarian rights consists of two phases." (Line 12) automatically invalidates the article. Rand did not support libertarianism. (afaik) On July 15 2010 02:17 XeliN wrote:
Rand struck me as an assertive person, the type who typically tries to lead and impose their rhetoric on weak followers.
This is entirely from reading about her on wikipedia and admittedly I have never come across her work, although I have never even heard her mentioned in my philosophy classes. The wise man does not judge when he has no information. On July 15 2010 02:21 Usyless wrote:Pretty much.
Rand makes logicians cry. But what do logicians know about logic?
And what do you know about logic? (This is a rhetorical question.) The problem with Rand, is that she is correct. The reason why this is a problem, is very simple. Much like how a high-school student does not easily comprehend (if at all) a 5th year university math exam, the "average" person does not easily comprehend "higher level logic." (I don't really have a better term off the top of my head.) As convenient as it is for a person to believe their capacity to think is unequaled (or equal to everyone else's), a simply objective observation of the psychology of an "average" person when faced with Objectivism reveals that people, just like in everything else, are not all equal thinkers. Sigh, an now an analogy because of this fact: I'm pretty sure no one will disagree with me that if they train at Starcraft everyday for the next X years, they will not be as good as Flash or <insert progamer here>. All people are capable of different things, to different levels of competence. Thinking is no exception. As much as Rand railed against the libertarian movement of her day, which I believe was largely Rothbardian, Rand's political philosophy is libertarian. That is, she believes in a minimal state with little interference in the economy or people's lives. I don't know what to say about your rambling about "higher level logic". I'm sure, like Rand, you don't understand what logic is or how it works. I would challenge you to formalize inthe language of symbolic logic (or heck, quasi-formalize in ordinary language) the argument Rand tries to make based on the law of identity, so we could see the inferential principles at work to see if it's valid, but obviously if you were capable of doing that you'd have already seen that it's not. Feel free to try anyway (yeah right). You're right that some people are better at logic and thinking than others - in particular, logicians and philosophers are better at logic and thinking than the average Joe. And the consensus among them is that Rand couldn't string a decent argument together if her life depended on it. I've run into Randians before so I know the next thing you want to say is about professional philosophers and logicians being "ivory tower intellectuals" who just don't understand their own fields so I'll chuckle in advance. Edit: Also it helps if you actually come up with cogent criticisms of the piece I linked to instead of just railing on about how bad it is. But that again would ask too much of you, I'm sure.
If you're a fan of stupid philosophy, then you are stupid.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is stupid.
Ayn Rand's fans are stupid.
Is that a valid argument?
|
On July 15 2010 05:26 Surrealz wrote:
I am a philosophy minor/mathematics major, and I can tell you that modern philosophers all agree that the best "bang for your buck" in happiness is new experiences or knowledge. Education really is a vital part of our lives, as without it we would be back in the cave.
edit - education makes u happy
do you consider us a happy society? if not, do you think we need more education? or different education? is it only a certain kind of education that makes one happy?
i disagree with those philosophers and agree with the super old ancient wisdom, that has been floating around in various forms and names for at least a several thousand years: only the truth can set us free and take the suffering away. a.k.a. enlightenment.
|
Technically its assuming that an Ayn Rand fan is a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I suspect thats what you meant anyway.
SEMANTICS ARE FUN
|
On July 14 2010 16:18 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly. real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them. "the only proof of strength is strength manifested" ????? (guess who said this young phil students) On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
they are not "subjective"... they do however lead to antimonies whereby two sides can both be proven correct. Kant showed us this and used "antimony" to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. Kant dealt with 4 main antimonies.. Each of these has an equally plausible YES and NO answer. 1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time (is the universe infinite?) 2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist), 3. the problem of free will in relation to universal causality (is there "free will"?) 4. the existence of a necessary being (does "God" exist) I have learned something from this post. This thread is now valid.
Ayn Rand considered Kant among the most detestable and vile "Philophers" in history, and openly mocked him.
How ironic luls. (That you deemed this thread valid due to ideas presented about someone who you should be considering invalid and detestable)
Anyway, you know what they said. Its often those who know the least about something who shout the loudest.
|
On July 15 2010 06:05 kzn wrote:
Technically its assuming that an Ayn Rand fan is a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I suspect thats what you meant anyway.
SEMANTICS ARE FUN
ahhh, I posted too quick. It's not a real modus ponens so there is some weird stuffs going on. That's where I wanted to go anyways.
|
On July 15 2010 05:57 jp_zer0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 05:19 Usyless wrote:On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 23:16 Pandain wrote:Perhaps you should offer someeone to refute your presentation of objectivism. So offer a piece of evidence and then debate from there, not the whole objecctivism.
For example, is is easier to say "Prove that God doesnn't exist." then to prove that god exists.
So first prove objectivism exists and then go from there. For me to present Objectivism, would be meaningless. Not only am I seriously doubtful of my ability to properly present Objectivism, I have no desire to. The truth of Objectivism is axiomatic. There's a good quote from Rand (gee, I wonder why the creator of the philosophy would have something good to say about it), explaining how on can only argue against the validity of the axioms purposed by Objectivism by using said axioms as the basis of their argument. Besides, I am not here to waste time by mincing semantics with people on the internet. This is a thread on philosophy. Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. It's up to the individual to see as far as they can. Some people cannot see far enough, that's called the bell curve. On July 15 2010 00:13 parasaurolophus wrote:
You should listen to Daimon, he just owned you pretty hard, you should probably beg for his forgiveness too right about now. Hmm, some random insult from some random scrub who doesn't even understand how I'm right. Yeah, I'll definitely listen to you. (And people think the "cultists of Rand" are unsavoury characters) On July 15 2010 00:41 Drunken.Jedi wrote:I may have slightly oversimplified Objectivist ethics, but the assumption that initiating violence is (almost) always unethical is still at the very centre of Objectivist ethics. In the one page summary that you linked, Rand herself writes that "no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."
You still have done nothing to show why this assumption is true.
You are mistaken. First, the idea that "might makes right" is discussed in depth in Atlas Shrugged. It is not an "assumption," it is a logical proof. Second, the idea of non-violence is not the centre of Objectivism. It is simply a proof. Rational behaviour does not require violence. Might makes right is an accepted logical fallacy after all. On July 15 2010 01:41 Usyless wrote:Ayn Rand is pretty well-known for drawing positively ridiculous inferences from her "axioms". Her moves from trivialities like A=A to political or moral conclusions are chock full of embarrassing non-sequiturs. Similarly, her attempt to justify libertarianism out of basically egoist principles makes some pretty basic errors. Consequently, she isn't taken seriously in philosophy, though she retains a really obnoxious and dogmatic cult (as we can see in this thread). Here's a good critique of Rand that gives her way more credit than she deserves. http://reocities.com/amosapient/rand.htmlIf one wants to read about a sort of neo-aristotelian individualistic egoism it's better to go to Nietzsche, and if one wants a competent defense of libertarianism, it's better to go to someone like Robert Nozick or Jan Narveson. She's also a terrible, bombastic writer but that's neither here nor there. I consider myself to be poorly educated on the subject of how Rand is perceived. I would greatly enjoy if you could provide some sources for these "non-sequiturs" and the "positively ridiculous inferences." As for the link you provided, I will be quite honest: I read that quite some time ago and my recollection tells me that it was another ridiculously flawed argument. Also, the "Rand's case for libertarian rights consists of two phases." (Line 12) automatically invalidates the article. Rand did not support libertarianism. (afaik) On July 15 2010 02:17 XeliN wrote:
Rand struck me as an assertive person, the type who typically tries to lead and impose their rhetoric on weak followers.
This is entirely from reading about her on wikipedia and admittedly I have never come across her work, although I have never even heard her mentioned in my philosophy classes. The wise man does not judge when he has no information. On July 15 2010 02:21 Usyless wrote:Pretty much.
Rand makes logicians cry. But what do logicians know about logic?
And what do you know about logic? (This is a rhetorical question.) The problem with Rand, is that she is correct. The reason why this is a problem, is very simple. Much like how a high-school student does not easily comprehend (if at all) a 5th year university math exam, the "average" person does not easily comprehend "higher level logic." (I don't really have a better term off the top of my head.) As convenient as it is for a person to believe their capacity to think is unequaled (or equal to everyone else's), a simply objective observation of the psychology of an "average" person when faced with Objectivism reveals that people, just like in everything else, are not all equal thinkers. Sigh, an now an analogy because of this fact: I'm pretty sure no one will disagree with me that if they train at Starcraft everyday for the next X years, they will not be as good as Flash or <insert progamer here>. All people are capable of different things, to different levels of competence. Thinking is no exception. As much as Rand railed against the libertarian movement of her day, which I believe was largely Rothbardian, Rand's political philosophy is libertarian. That is, she believes in a minimal state with little interference in the economy or people's lives. I don't know what to say about your rambling about "higher level logic". I'm sure, like Rand, you don't understand what logic is or how it works. I would challenge you to formalize inthe language of symbolic logic (or heck, quasi-formalize in ordinary language) the argument Rand tries to make based on the law of identity, so we could see the inferential principles at work to see if it's valid, but obviously if you were capable of doing that you'd have already seen that it's not. Feel free to try anyway (yeah right). You're right that some people are better at logic and thinking than others - in particular, logicians and philosophers are better at logic and thinking than the average Joe. And the consensus among them is that Rand couldn't string a decent argument together if her life depended on it. I've run into Randians before so I know the next thing you want to say is about professional philosophers and logicians being "ivory tower intellectuals" who just don't understand their own fields so I'll chuckle in advance. Edit: Also it helps if you actually come up with cogent criticisms of the piece I linked to instead of just railing on about how bad it is. But that again would ask too much of you, I'm sure. If you're a fan of stupid philosophy, then you are stupid. Ayn Rand's philosophy is stupid. Ayn Rand's fans are stupid. Is that a valid argument?
Yes. Sound, perhaps not. But valid, yes.
edit: I take that back. I suppose someone could be a fan of Ayn Rand without being a fan of her philosophy.
|
On July 15 2010 04:15 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 03:43 Gnosis wrote:
I see, I get what you're saying now. So suffering, why is it undesireable, and why is pleasure (or happiness) desireable, if these things do not exist inherently? Well to answer that question we have to define what suffering and happiness are based on which are judgments by the mind on phenomena. Anything at all can be happiness to you and suffering to another. So really we are saying what have you judged to be good and you want to experience and what you have judged to be bad and do not want to experience. Desire is empty of inherent existence It is not that you want happiness and do not want suffering, in terms of happiness and suffering somehow existing outside of your reference point, what you want is what you have defined to be good and do not want what you have defined to be bad. Taken from this view point what you are chasing to get at, happiness, will not actually make you happy because you have mistaken what you are really chasing which is an empty desire. In Buddhism, suffering comes from attachment/desire/clinging and because we live in an impermanent world no matter what you try to achieve or hold onto for happiness will eventually be taken away, this is assured. And because of this you will experience suffering. Trying to run away from suffering also puts you into more suffering because you reaffirm your belief in the inherent existence of suffering. For Buddhism the definition of happiness is really the absence of delusion. If you no longer believe in inherent things you will no longer be attached to causes and conditions and will affirm the wholeness of your existence. In the absence of delusion a deep compassion and understanding for other beings develops and a great peace. This is because the mind no longer races after things to either get happiness or get away from suffering and you see in your fellow beings the suffering that they experience for there delusions and know that this is not necessary nor even warranted.
What if I believe that suffering comes from a belief in impermanence, whereas happiness comes from proper desire, attachment, etc. Would Buddhism then tell me that my beliefs are errant, and that this is impossible?
|
On July 15 2010 05:12 AncienTs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions then how do you explain cell apoptosis? why are we programmed to die?
why would you expect natural selection to program us to live forever? once an organism reproduces (and in some cases, raises its offspring to maturity), it's no longer required for further genetic propagation.
|
On July 15 2010 07:26 Win.win wrote:
why would you expect natural selection to program us to live forever? once an organism reproduces (and in some cases, raises its offspring to maturity), it's no longer required for further genetic propagation.
If you look at evolution as having a "goal" (which is a bit silly but it makes sense as a simplification) of maximizing the population of the evolving organism, it does make sense to select for zero aging. You end up with reproduction to cover deaths caused by something other than aging and without aging deaths your population explodes.
The answer that makes more sense to me is that, if an organism evolves to no longer age, it is significantly hampered in further evolution, because generations last significantly longer and reproduction rates probably fall. Any organism that stops aging needs to be "perfect" or it will be out-evolved over a long period of time.
Its probably happened a fair bit, but it would never last for thousands of years. In fact, I think there are one or two organisms that don't technically age.
|
On July 15 2010 08:19 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 07:26 Win.win wrote:
why would you expect natural selection to program us to live forever? once an organism reproduces (and in some cases, raises its offspring to maturity), it's no longer required for further genetic propagation. If you look at evolution as having a "goal" (which is a bit silly but it makes sense as a simplification) of maximizing the population of the evolving organism, it does make sense to select for zero aging. You end up with reproduction to cover deaths caused by something other than aging and without aging deaths your population explodes. The answer that makes more sense to me is that, if an organism evolves to no longer age, it is significantly hampered in further evolution, because generations last significantly longer and reproduction rates probably fall. Any organism that stops aging needs to be "perfect" or it will be out-evolved over a long period of time. Its probably happened a fair bit, but it would never last for thousands of years. In fact, I think there are one or two organisms that don't technically age.
it's not a simplification to look at evolution as having a goal; it only confuses the matter. simply put, those that survive long enough to reproduce, do reproduce, so those are the organisms that exist.
|
Then it would appear to be a legitimate question: why aren't organisms "programmed" to live longer, to reproduce many more times than they already do? If an organism produces the strongest of its kind, I fail to see how "once an organism reproduces, it's no longer needed" answers the question. Why not produce more?
|
On July 15 2010 08:32 Gnosis wrote:
Then it would appear to be a legitimate question: why aren't organisms "programmed" to live longer, to reproduce many more times than they already do? If an organism produces the strongest of its kind, I fail to see how "once an organism reproduces, it's no longer needed" answers the question.
what do you mean by "if an organism produces the strongest of its kind"? some live longer than others, and some reproduce more than others.
|
On July 15 2010 06:08 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 16:18 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly. real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them. "the only proof of strength is strength manifested" ????? (guess who said this young phil students) On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
they are not "subjective"... they do however lead to antimonies whereby two sides can both be proven correct. Kant showed us this and used "antimony" to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. Kant dealt with 4 main antimonies.. Each of these has an equally plausible YES and NO answer. 1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time (is the universe infinite?) 2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist), 3. the problem of free will in relation to universal causality (is there "free will"?) 4. the existence of a necessary being (does "God" exist) I have learned something from this post. This thread is now valid. Ayn Rand considered Kant among the most detestable and vile "Philophers" in history, and openly mocked him. How ironic luls. (That you deemed this thread valid due to ideas presented about someone who you should be considering invalid and detestable) Anyway, you know what they said. Its often those who know the least about something who shout the loudest.
Kant is one of the greatest irrationalists of all time. Of course she despised him. Rand rocks!
|
What is the purpose of life, if any? Our planet is one, in hundreds of thousands of billions of galaxies existing in possible various universes each having billions of solar systems and planets. How can we go on and play Starcraft 2 when life is short and we probably go back to nothingness when we die. Shouldn't we instead focus our entire lifes on the essence of pursuing a greater good, or just go on about on our lives like bees in a hive. What should we, as human beings, do with our lifes. For now, our race is at the begining. Perhaps a day will come where we will make a difference, but for now, we're just an atom of a grain of sand in the sahara desert. And then there are some people worried about the size of their dicks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
