I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
Personal answers.
Meaning of life - To enjoy it Lasting happiness - Small problems, great friends. Most important - Honesty, Integrity, Tolerance. Good and evil - World is grey, but hurting someone for personal reasons can be considered to be a darker shade of grey. Wisdom - Ability to simplify the complicated.
"To be without doubt is to be stupid" - Tage Danielsson. Not the best translation of this epic quote, but its one of my favorites.
Im not that knowledgeable in this subject in general, so take my opinions with a shovel of salt.
What is the point of life ? To progress. At least, that's the point of human life. When simple molecules that could reproduce got more complex and became life, their point was the reproduce... well because that's what they do. That's why they exist. But to progress is just what I think the point of life should be. It'd be great if everyone else thought the same as I did (actually after thinking a moment on that, I don't think it would be great lol).
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Me? Or humans? For me, working in a job I love, having a family I love, enjoying what life has to offer, know that my family and friends are also happy, and leaving something behind in this world.
What are your most important values ? Respect (asiannnn!), positive attitude (and I mean this one, not just saying "oh more homework, let's get this stuff done!" Applying a positive attitude and outlook to everything in life makes life something that's VERY enjoyable ALL the time.). I could probably think of more...
What is good and what is evil ? Two ends on a spectrum that is not mutually exclusive (lol that didn't make sense but it's the best way I can put it).
What is Wisdom ? Whatever anyone wants to define it as.
I generally agree with anything Buddhist (I mean this in the way where being a 'Buddhist' is meant to describe the absence of any idea of what 'Buddhism' means). Usually any philosophy that has the idea of having to go beyond thoughts and ideas in order to actually know what 'reality' and 'life' are about I like.
My beliefs are 100 % on the spiritual side.
Other then that I've recently come across the idea of scientific materialism and because of that and all the things I had been thinking of and questioning before I no longer believe in science as being able to give us anything that we can call 'real'.
I will answer your questions but as with all things words and ideas are can never touch reality because of this my answers really don't mean a thing...
1 - The point to life is to realize what the point of life is. 2. Nothing outside of yourself can bring you happiness. Furthermore, nothing that is within can bring you happiness either. That is because within and without are opposites and by searching in either place you affirm your idea of separation with everything. Happiness is in unity, not separation. 3. My most important value is - "The crystal truth of compassion" - Jack Kerouac 4. Good and evil are opposites. From my point of view neither are true. Good and evil are illusions created by the mind based on the idea of separation. The root of all good and evil is this thought. What is truly 'good' is love. And love has no opposite. I use love in the sense of 'God' and I use 'God' in the sense of wholeness, consciousness, and knowing (that is the ability of the mind to be 'luminous' and know). 5. Wisdom ultimately has nothing to do with ideas and all that to do with what is beyond ideas and conceptualization. Because the root cause of conceptualization is judgement and the root of that is the belief in the separation of everything (the universe into discrete forms). Therefore, wisdom is intrinsic to all 'forms' in the universe because all 'forms' are actually not forms because there is no separation. So it goes like this. Your belief in separation causes you to judge and see others as separate from you. Because you judge you must necessarily eventually judge as 'good' or 'evil'. Judgement's in 'good' and 'evil' eventually lead to violence which reaffirms your belief in separation because you react and recoil from that violence from others and to yourself. Wisdom on the other hand which is beyond conceptualizations, that is to say beyond judgement. Wisdom knows no separation and as such cannot make judgement's and because of this it is truly wise and knows not other then itself. No fear.
On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote: The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest.
I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective.
I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like
"Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones."
meaning of life - to survive, i'd like to experience as much as possible, to do this i need to live longer xD
lasting happiness - competition, life gets boring other wise, and i despise boredom what is good and what is evil - i don't believe either exist in the literal sense that they are normally presented
what is wisdom? - pretty subjective personally i feel its the ability to use your intelligence. and using it to simplify the complicated is very useful xD
What is the point of life ? The assimilation of all living species
What can bring you lasting happiness ? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their SCVs"
What are your most important values ? "Survival of the fittest"
What is good and what is evil ? "There is no good or evil only the swarm"
What is Wisdom ? To follow the will of the Queen
Favorite Quote
"I hope you're prepared for the next encounter. The zerg are coming. The zerg are nature in all her fury. Nature doesn't just adapt. Nature cheats, changes the rules, and slips out the back door with your wallet while you're still trying to figure out what the hell happened."
What is the point of life ? There is no fundamental purpose.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? This is a function of biology, and therefore ultimately inconsequential.
What are your most important values ? Truth*, beauty.
What is good and what is evil ? There is no such thing.
What is Wisdom ? Just a word. Words have meaning.
*I think the only potentially contentious thing in my answers is this, and the subsequent discussion of "is there one truth, one reality, among individuals with different perceptions?". Questioning the uniqueness of existence just leads to irrationality, which is at odds with any sort of knowledge, especially mutual knowledge. So I discount it as irrelevant in an interaction among intelligent agents.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
This. Also, need to stop doing philosophy threads on a gaming forum.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote: The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest.
I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective.
I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like
"Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones."
I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused (as is currently happening with a certain poster), as others have pointed out.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Subjective. For me it is pleasure
What are your most important values ? Adaptability, Intelligence, benevolence
What is good and what is evil ? Subjective. They don't exist, just a social construct
What is Wisdom ? Subjective. Once again social construct.
Personally i think that wisdom is something that one gains over time spent on this rock... but thats just me. It is not intelligence or logic, just experience from living.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever.
But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective.
Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
That's conflating what a community thinks is moral with what is moral. There are people who think that those are the same but they're practically nonexistent among serious philosophers. The commonsense view is that people who thought slavery was okay were wrong, and not that slavery really was okay until people decided it wasn't. So while what people THINK is right may 'evolve' (and it's worth noting that this sort of 'evolution' of cultural norms isn't the same as Darwinian evolution by natural selection), that doesn't mean that what IS right evolves.
the short version: to try and point out a disanalogy that way would beg the question against every major metaethical theory.
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote: The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest.
I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective.
I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like
"Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones."
I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
Im saying if something isnt empirically falsifiable the truth is a matter of opinion and value. Something that cannot be disproven is an subjective truth in a sense.
I think that there is an empirical truth and the rest are just value-judgement and/or speculations.
Speculating about objective truth I will say that there probably exist one. But its an unknowable truth still a truth?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever.
But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective.
Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong.
The analogy is comparing "an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs" to "an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs" (those are direct quotes), and I was explaining how the latter has no dependency on evolutionary theory, whereas the former very well might, considering evolutionary theory can actually explain morality (whereas evolutionary theory doesn't explain mathematics). Again, please explain this to me, because I have no idea how that analogy makes any sense at all.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever.
But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective.
Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong.
The analogy is comparing "an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs" to "an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs" (those are direct quotes), and I was explaining how the latter has no dependency on evolutionary theory, whereas the former very well might, considering evolutionary theory can actually explain morality (whereas evolutionary theory doesn't explain mathematics). Again, please explain this to me, because I have no idea how that analogy makes any sense at all.
And please don't change the subject.
Again, you're just begging the question. If evolutionary theory can explain the moral opinions of a culture (which it can't anyway unless you misunderstand what "evolutionary theory" is), that still doesn't explain morality UNLESS the moral opinions of a culture are all there is to morality. And that's precisely the claim being denied.
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
In that case, I retract the phrasing. Of course, this is why I used quotes.
On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote: The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest.
I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective.
I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like
"Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones."
I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
Im saying if something isnt empirically falsifiable the truth is a matter of opinion and value. Something that cannot be disproven is an subjective truth in a sense.
I think that there is an empirical truth and the rest are just value-judgement and/or speculations.
Speculating about objective truth I will say that there probably exist one. But its an unknowable truth still a truth?
Varning: Purely my thoughts.
If it's an unknowable truth, then it is still a truth. But at that point you (or we) are dealing with two different questions: 1) is the nature of truth objective or subjective? 2) can we know the nature of truth? I do have to disagree with your assessment that something which isn't "empirically falsifiable" is a matter of opinion and value. Not to be "cheeky," I wonder how we would go about empirically falsifying your statement?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
Go one step further, your idea of "individualized experience" is nothing but a dream, and hence, on what authority do you comment on anything? Is it not possible that my "individualized experience" conveys absolute truth, whereas yours does not? The position is nothing but a mass of contradictory propositions...
Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
On July 14 2010 06:35 Neobick wrote: Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
Speculation is fine, isn't this how one receives feedback for further speculation?
Life exists because it arose and reproduced; there's no reason to claim it has objective purpose. Morality exists in the brains of social animals because it increases the chances of genetic propagation; there's no reason to claim it has objective significance.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
That's conflating what a community thinks is moral with what is moral. There are people who think that those are the same but they're practically nonexistent among serious philosophers. The commonsense view is that people who thought slavery was okay were wrong, and not that slavery really was okay until people decided it wasn't. So while what people THINK is right may 'evolve' (and it's worth noting that this sort of 'evolution' of cultural norms isn't the same as Darwinian evolution by natural selection), that doesn't mean that what IS right evolves.
the short version: to try and point out a disanalogy that way would beg the question against every major metaethical theory.
Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong, even though we have only recently decided as a community to shun the practice of it. To be clear, I'm defining "morality" in the sense of how it changes based on how we grow as a community. You may be defining it as the absolute, unchanging standards. (There are many ways to define it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality .)
I suppose if you're viewing it in your way, I guess it makes sense that it's absolute and objective, like mathematics. The differences between our definitions is what caused the confusion, I think.
I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look.
On July 14 2010 06:35 Neobick wrote: Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
Speculation is fine, isn't this how one receives feedback for further speculation?
Speculation is entertainment, I like analysing and thinking, so in a sense I am just cruely entertaining myself on the expense of the philosophy majors.
But you are correct, speculation is the farmer of ideas.
You dont come of as chasing btw. My argumentation when I think I got the "right" answer is the definition of passive-aggressiveness.
Lets boil my assumptions down to one statement.
An objective truth are empirically falsifiably, or unknowable, if there is such a thing.
On July 14 2010 06:45 Kishkumen wrote: I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look.
I would be as suspicious of any philosophy you learn in an English class as the economics you learn in a cellular biology class.
What is the point of life ? Serve God, be a good person. Play starcraft.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Besides starcraft, the feeling that you'll useful and still are useful. I feel I'm very lucky in that I've had a good life and, am very happy almost all the time. What are your most important values ? Compassion, Empathy, Knowledge What is good and what is evil ? Good is resisting the tempations of evil and evil is putting the needs of yourself to the point of harming the needs of the many. What is Wisdom ? Eh, anyone who thinks they're wise probably doesnn't know much.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom?
1. What's the meaning of life- a question that seems to have deep philosophical meaning, but it's really just a semantics problem. There is no meaning to life. People can try to make up meaning for their own lives, but life itself has no point and no meaning. It just is.
2. Friends, family and a generally positive outlook on life. I seem to remember a psicological study that mentions these, but I can't remember exactly offhand.
3. Reason, justice, freedom. You can go pretty far on those three.
4. Good are those things that promote a style of life that leads to generalized, long-term prosperity and happiness. Evil are those things that work against the goals of prosperity and happiness, or lead to death and extinction.
5. Wisdom is understanding how and why things work the way they do, and how and why things interact with each other. This goes for plants, animals, people, and systems such as the economy, politics and society.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
If morality is subjective then it has no real meaning. It is then simply a product of circumstance, and cannot be of any practical ethical use. Therefore, we should ignore this case and only discuss morality as either objective, or nonexistant.
I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a...
technical argument vs. "philosophical" argument
My new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default!
For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields.
A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences.
Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote: I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a...
technical argument vs. "philosophical" argument
My new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default!
For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields.
A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences.
Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
theres a certain probabiltiy (albeit very veryvery veryveryveryvery unlikely of coursE) that any object might pass through any other. google up quantum tunneling.
On July 14 2010 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong
...
Why?
This is not a philosophical statement, is is a statement out of faith. Lets deconstruct the definition of wrong in this context. Normally, wrong can be defined as "A value that does not represent "truth"". However, in an ethical context of "this is "wrong"", such a definition of does not make any sense. What is true has nothing to do with what is moral. In an ethical sense, a wrong action is not a value that is "not the truth", but a value that is "Opposed to what can be defined as moral".
The statement that something is wrong means it is opposed to something it is defined somewhere as "moral", or "right". If a person is the one defining moral or right, then that statement can be easily made without any contradiction. However, in order for it to be universally wrong, then "the universe"...
If the universe can define human action, the universe must thusforth be humanistic. You must prove the universe is humanistic before you can even start defining what it thinks is wrong or right.
This is your first challenge. Your first challenge is not to find evolutionary basis for our behavior. That is entirely irrelevant because it does not translate into morality, unless evolution itself is humanistic.
I don't see how you could possible accomplish showing how the universe is humanistic.
A humanistic universe could more or less be called a god.
On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote: I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a...
technical argument vs. "philosophical" argument
My new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default!
For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields.
A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences.
Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
No wonder you think Philosophy is a waste of time, your approach to it is completely wrong. Philosophic perspectives should never be arguing with a scientific argument. Philosophy is not speculating what should fall under the jurisdiction of science. What you described is shitty armchair pseudosicence speculation.
Philosophy is about making sense of science, among a host of other things. So Science figured out we can send messages back into the past. k.
Philosophy's job is figuring out why the hell does this matter to us. I don't mean its technical applications. I mean what does that fact mean for us. How will it change our perspectives on life? How will it effect our culture? Is x still a meaningful action? Its about translating cold, hard and ultimately meaningless logic of the universe into a form that matters to human.
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
I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions.
I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts.
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished.
Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
If morality is subjective then it has no real meaning.
Yes, but it still has meaning to those who value it subjectively
On July 14 2010 07:13 alphafuzard wrote: It is then simply a product of circumstance, and cannot be of any practical ethical use.
If what you mean is that you can't order people to do or not do something on the grounds of an objective moral code, yes I agree, and I used to feel the same way too. But morals can still be agreed upon and respected like a mutual social contract.
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
What you perhaps are actually wanting to ask is, "Why do we live?" or "What end justifies people in general continuing their existence?" In that case, what we really need is a single value that would apply to every human being on the planet. If it was subjective, then the result would of course be that there is no objective meaning to life. That, my friends, is something undesirable by many people. Thus, what is the one thing that every human being acts on?
I would say that every human being justifies their continuing existence by seeking happiness. Going to college, robbing a bank, killing human beings, killing yourself, getting a job, making money.... all of it comes down to one thing. Seeking satisfaction, furthering yourself, making things better for you. It's my opinion that humanity is quite hedonistic, and even the belief in God and the pursuit of religion is hedonistic at its core.
On July 14 2010 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong
...
Why?
This is not a philosophical statement, is is a statement out of faith. Lets deconstruct the definition of wrong in this context. Normally, wrong can be defined as "A value that does not represent "truth"". However, in an ethical context of "this is "wrong"", such a definition of does not make any sense. What is true has nothing to do with what is moral. In an ethical sense, a wrong action is not a value that is "not the truth", but a value that is "Opposed to what can be defined as moral".
The statement that something is wrong means it is opposed to something it is defined somewhere as "moral", or "right". If a person is the one defining moral or right, then that statement can be easily made without any contradiction. However, in order for it to be universally wrong, then "the universe"...
If the universe can define human action, the universe must thusforth be humanistic. You must prove the universe is humanistic before you can even start defining what it thinks is wrong or right.
This is your first challenge. Your first challenge is not to find evolutionary basis for our behavior. That is entirely irrelevant because it does not translate into morality, unless evolution itself is humanistic.
I don't see how you could possible accomplish showing how the universe is humanistic.
A humanistic universe could more or less be called a god.
On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote: I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a...
technical argument vs. "philosophical" argument
My new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default!
For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields.
A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences.
Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
No wonder you think Philosophy is a waste of time, your approach to it is completely wrong. Philosophic perspectives should never be arguing with a scientific argument. Philosophy is not speculating what should fall under the jurisdiction of science. What you described is shitty armchair pseudosicence speculation.
Philosophy is about making sense of science, among a host of other things. So Science figured out we can send messages back into the past. k.
Philosophy's job is figuring out why the hell does this matter to us. I don't mean its technical applications. I mean what does that fact mean for us. How will it change our perspectives on life? How will it effect our culture? Is x still a meaningful action? Its about translating cold, hard and ultimately meaningless logic of the universe into a form that matters to human.
Yup, that's why theres so many different religious sects all claiming to hold the onne absolute truth. Given proof that God exists, the question then becomes, which religion is right? Then the objective areas of morality begin to form basic concepts of good and evil and in between.
What is the point of life ? The point of my existence, the existence that I perceive as mine at least, is to make as big a splash as possible in our inconceivably small puddle to help allow people to be able to drink and imbibe for themselves. That is to not only return the valuable resources that I waste to live, but exponentiate that return to allow others to be able to safely compete on a relatively level field.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Either knowing that I allowed science to advance by bringing more into that light of technology from the chains of starvation and an area previously un-brightened by electricity...or earning the means to tinker and create to my hearts content for those I love...preferably both
What are your most important values ? Kindness, honor, respect, truth, logic, and love
What is good and what is evil ? Evil is that which knowingly spreads ignorance and deceives others by dulling their mind for its own gain. Good spreads truth and kindness with no care of anything but the desire to learn and advance
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
What is the point of life? - Nothing. No matter what we do on Earth, nothing will change. If I die as a nobody or die as the next multi-billionaire does not matter at all. The world will continue as it is no matter what.
What can bring you lasting happiness? - Learning to do and getting acknowledged at something I want to do.
What are your most important values? - Honesty (even if it means being blunt. I rather have a blunt honest person as a friend)
What is good and what is evil? - Good and evil? I think that's changes as perspectives change.
What is Wisdom? - Something you gain with age. It's not knowledge for sure. It's something that builds up with experience.
What philosophers or philosophical doctrines do you especially like and why? - Nietzsche. Existentialism seems to make sense to me.
On July 14 2010 06:45 Kishkumen wrote: I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look.
I would be as suspicious of any philosophy you learn in an English class as the economics you learn in a cellular biology class.
I agree, although in this case we learned about it by actually reading some Levinas. I don't see how it would differ much if we read the same thing in a philosophy course. Less of a focus on how it applies to literature would be about the only difference I can think of.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol. If you disagree don't be shy. I won't take offense. If what you have to say makes sense then thats awesome. : )
sorry for being a wet blanket, but I've been to a few philosophy lectures with a friend, and I find that it really consists of a bunch of people with nothing better to do arguing over really pointless things using totally opinionated arguments. It seems like a course that is focused on arguments for the sake of arguing ("Imagine if you are a time-travelling dragon, which era would you be living in?"), and a course designed for people who like to hear their own voice. Oh, and those people get really defensive when they are asked what their career plan is going to be, I mean, I didn't mean to stir up anything sensitive, it is really just an honest question every time. critical thinking, on the other hand, is achievable by studying so many other majors.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
Meaning of life - To achieve the skill of Flash and Jaedong combined. Lasting happiness - Win every OSL/MSL/Proleague final, ever. And ofc getting Ayumi Hamasaki as your gf. Most important - Macro, Micro, decision making. Good and evil - I'm the good, opponents are evil. Wisdom - Accepting that I am the best, and stop trying to teach others my skills, because it is just utterly incomprehensable to all the noobs in the world, that is everyone but me.
On July 14 2010 07:56 Pandain wrote: Yup, that's why theres so many different religious sects all claiming to hold the onne absolute truth. Given proof that God exists, the question then becomes, which religion is right? Then the objective areas of morality begin to form basic concepts of good and evil and in between.
And that's where I plug in the technical vs dogmatic argument. Dogmatic representatives would back out so far as to indicate their supposition is probable thus you should take it into consideration anyway, even if you do not assign the truth value to it yet.
This is a big problem. People filter information after they assimilate it. You will believe any fake info until you take rational, logical and empirical steps to verify it. That's how the brain works.
So what do we do to sort out the right version of everyone's answer to "What is your purpose in life?".
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ? I don't know.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Nothing lasts..
What are your most important values ? Treat other people like you want to be treated yourself.
What is good and what is evil ? Two words.
What is Wisdom ? Using you knowledge of things wisely.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before.
Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties.
Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing).
What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics.
Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge.
Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing.
Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real.
This idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
Someone on the internets want's my opines I must answers!
What is the point of life ? n/a
What can bring you lasting happiness ? chemical imbalance in brain until pleasure receptors burn out.
What are your most important values ? Wat? Do you mean what I respect most in others? Do you mean what I think are the most important values for people to have? Adaptability. Broad sweeping generalizations are never true. Initiative, you gotta try. Don't be too extreme?
What is good and what is evil ? I don't believe that good and evil exist. I think that we as people made up the two terms and then made two bins and started throwing ideas into them. However I have noticed that what is generally considered good allows civilization to survive, and what is not (stealing, murder) is usually considered evil.
What is Wisdom ? Wat? Ok so a wise person would be one who... well this is hard to define. Perhaps a wise man is simply one who can think about things critically. He tries to be rational.
On July 14 2010 09:21 ChoboCop wrote: Kant is the most important philosopher because he reconciled our conception of truth to include both the rational and empirical.
What is the point of life ? To experience, die, comeback, experience again, die again, and be able to benefit from the experience in the next stage of life after about 3-15 times. so the final death in this sphere just starts the same game in a more advanced one. it is a spiral, with an end that is evolving kind of. like in every part of it self. (nothing i believe in, i am not religious. i know that somehow/experience of my life regarding philosophy and researched science, but you dont have to believe me...:p )
What can bring you lasting happiness ? based on human psychic response and behavior, moments strengthen itself, so try to low value(=ignore) bad times and high value good times. if you feel really bad, live it, that makes you even feel good times more active. but actively try to get out, just dont feel bad if it doesn't effect that fast. like that you can live on an up spiral of happiness. you have to be in control of yourself to get that working.. sadly :p
What are your most important values ? Having energy is important. If you have energy you can give and even can get more in return. moral values is something standard i wont discuss that much.
What is good and what is evil ? the answere is, trying to reach a moral optimum and beeing aware of a paradox field of decision. 2 sides of a war for examle this is a simple question since the other is evil and the same side is good. if you watch it from far, good is to end the conflict without moral treasure get hurt. evil would be to strenghten both sides that much the conflict never ends and benefit from it. moral paradox would be, if the artificial lenghtened war between 2 countrys stables world power so there is no world war. you should be avoiding that situation nor getting into it, but if you are in, sometimes there is only a bad choice and a worse. if you know that you can avoid those situations in advance. at least, try. so far the concept of good and evil in a box.
What is Wisdom ? To have developed a standard by experience that high, you can never reach it and you know it.
What is your personal answer to these questions ? Oh, thats not personal, thats as objective as it can get. There is no truth to be proven, but a truth to be demanded. There is the objective truth out there but it is impossible to prove if you have it or not, nor to falsify.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ? Me/mine. because i like to think. i just consume philosophic exchange to find my own ideas again or get inspired. last one i remember maybe was popper. love his calm voice. [edit] some of my ideas into it: atheism is just another dogmatic religion, just without the powers you can get for free, out of believing.
Believing is for losers, i decided to know. It is stronger. but stay flexible with your thinking, grants a stable standpoint.
Hence there is no truth to be known by a human, ever, decide what is truth for you.
There are as many religions/ways of thinking and philosophy as there are human beeing. Let them be. I would design a way of thinking for every person based on his demands.
mainstreams only fit good on the minority of individuals.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
Ayn Rand as a writer is terrific, if you can read through all of the heavy language, her books WE and Atlas struggled are very well written and they do each underwrite the societies moral opinions of the times written.
On July 14 2010 09:36 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: What can bring you lasting happiness ? chemical imbalance in brain until pleasure receptors burn out.
Wait, what? Those burn out? I thought they were reconfigured to match the most common excitator found.
I think they burned out in some lab rats when humans placed some electrodes in a rats brain near what they thought was the pleasure center and then allowed the rat to stimulate it by pressing a button. Of course it's entirely possible the rat just fried the rest of his brain too.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
I dunno jack about philosophy but here goes my attempt~
1) Point of life = death. Life itself is a journey to reach a point where you die so new life can start.
2) Important values = love, sense of fellowship, solidarity
3) Good/Evil = Good = lack of evil and Evil = lack of good. To define that shit my head would explode
4) Wisdom = The opposite of intelligence. Intelligence is where you hypothesize and predict the outcomes of problems/situations, but I like to think wisdom is having certainty but doesn't have anything to do with being smart.
There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
What is the point of life ?= Just to get through it without killing yourself and still being able to respect yourself on your death bed.
What can bring you lasting happiness?= That can't happen. You can have moments were you are happy, and alot of stuff brings me moments of joy. Lasting happiness however would be heaven, and I don't think that can be found in this life ^^
What are your most important values?= personal responsibility. I just want to handle my business at all times, and not let my family/friends down.
What is good and what is evil?= Well I think there really is no good or evil. Just whatever morality society has placed on us. So I guess my morality is based on judeo christian beliefs.
What is Wisdom? To accept the fact that you don't know everything, but never stop tying to learn.
What is the point of life? The point of life, in a biological sense is the continuation there of. Apart from that, what meaning or point life may have is subjective.
What can bring you lasting happiness? Lasting happiness would be meaningless as it is lasting. It is the gradient of emotions that gives them meaning.
What are your most important values? To cherish life, value wisdom and knowledge and respect others. I could list more but these are overarching.
What is good and what is evil? Nothing but words and labels.
What is Wisdom? The definition I prefer is that it consists of the best usage of knowledge.
Concerning epistemology, I’m a methodological naturalist. Apart from this though I have no doctrines or philosophers I prefer; I may be somewhat of an armchair philosopher myself, albeit I am far from well versed enough to give an honest opinion apart from that.
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)
Each of these has a thesis that contradicts an antithesis. For example: in the First Antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by "successive synthesis" -- yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been "empty time" out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason. Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless.
This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. These contradictions are inherent in reason when it is applied to the world as it is in itself, independently of our perceptions of it (this has to do with the distinction between phenomena and noumena). Kant's goal in his critical philosophy was to identify what claims we are and are not justified in making, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.
this work had tremendous influence on Wittgenstein who would go on to pronounce that "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent"
What is the point of life ? The Pursuit of Happiness
What can bring you lasting happiness ? Hmm, Lasting doesn't make any sense to me since we all die. I suppose the first step would be indefinite lifespan? But then more problems arise with that.
What are your most important values ? Maslow's Pyramid lol. Totally subjective, I'd suppose they can be bent depending on your first two answers.
What is good and what is evil ? This is a matter of perspective. Many do evil with good intentions and vice versa. With limited information this can't be anything but subjective. Furthermore limited information is at the core of the human condition imo.
What is Wisdom ? Well documented information.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ? Kant, Wittgenstein, Camus
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.
I don't think anyone can have lasting happiness. I think that happiness is an emotion that you experience at a given point of time. I don't think anyone can constantly be happy at all moments. You have happy moments, sad moments, neutral moments... I would say try to make as many happy moments as possible and you achieve this either through pleasure, satisfaction from work or hobby and fulfillment of one's own goals and many other things that I'm sure are missing.
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.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: What is the point of life ?
Everyone decides what the point of their own life will be. In general objective terms there is no point to life, just as there is no point to stars or rocks or space, these things just exist. Not everything has to have a point.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Nothing can bring you lasting happiness, the only way we can experience happiness is relative to the unhappiness we feel. If you're constantly in one state then that becomes the norm and is no longer considered "happiness" per se. I do think some people do have a higher natural level of happiness than others but I don't think anyone can be truly happy 100% of the time, the brain just isn't built that way.
Having said that, I think it's possible to have lasting unhappiness, for example people who are in a state of constant suffering due to malnutrition, clinical depression, physical pain brought on by illness or injury etc...
What are your most important values ?
I am honestly still trying to figure that out, to be honest it changes from day to day, sometimes I only want to help others, other times I only want to help myself.
What is good and what is evil ?
I think in general evil is considered an action which causes suffering to others while good is an action that benefits others. That said there's a huge grey area when it comes to actions that both harm and help others simultaneously, and that's where most of the debate regarding good and evil arises from.
What is Wisdom ?
I think Wisdom is having an intuitive understanding of how your own actions and the actions of others will affect the world around you and the people within it.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
To be honest I really find all philosophy text to be fairly dull and hard to get through, I've read the likes of David Hume, Kant and Descartes but I prefer philosophy when it's presented in a more digestable form. I would say George Orwell and Douglas Adams really stand out in this regard as their books contain tons of philosophical ideas. In terms of doctorines I really love some of the Buddhist philosophies, I really want to read and learn more about this religion.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
Incorrect. I've put forth the assertion that Objectivism, as defined and created by Ms. Rand, is irrefutable. "Irrefutable" calls upon the realm of Logic, as does Objectivism.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
If you wish to "prove" or "show" me that I am wrong and Objectivism is "incorrect," then do so. If the proof you put forward is rational, then I will accept it.
However there are two things: 1) Objectivism is the only philosophy that I am aware of that correctly utilizes logic, so using it's own language against it is impossible 2) What will most likely happen is that the conundrum of "This logic makes sense to me" becomes apparent. At which point I will simply quote the first post I made in this thread and stop caring.
Objectivism is the only valid philosphy. All Philosophy boils down to the "Subjectivist vs Objectivist Dichotomy." The only way to argue "against" Objectivism is to use Subjectivist terms, which are all fallacies to begin with.
What 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, Bertrand Russel, Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bill Hicks, Robert C Solomon, Noam Chomsky.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I asked someone to refute Objectivism. Not my presentation of Objectivism.
forget the "philosophical question" of is "objectivism the best". how about the pyschological question of why a man must to cling to any one system of thought in the first place. much less the question why he must "defend against rebuttal" any and all assertions contrary to his precious mummy-ideal.
What is the point of life ? Progress, or looking for it. What can bring you lasting happiness ? Nothing, or death. What are your most important values ? Respect, Selfconsciousness What is good and what is evil ? Well, on the look on society we have laws etc. subjective there is morality. I really do like the idea of morality more, ie Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence. The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
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)
Each of these has a thesis that contradicts an antithesis. For example: in the First Antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by "successive synthesis" -- yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been "empty time" out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason. Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless.
This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. These contradictions are inherent in reason when it is applied to the world as it is in itself, independently of our perceptions of it (this has to do with the distinction between phenomena and noumena). Kant's goal in his critical philosophy was to identify what claims we are and are not justified in making, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.
this work had tremendous influence on Wittgenstein who would go on to pronounce that "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent"
None of those "antimonies" have in fact anything at all to do with philosophy and each of those has a clear yes or no answer that can only be discovered by science (if in fact they can be answered).
The universe if either infinite or finite and it may well be possible for physicists to someday answer this question. Similarly, there is a clear answer to whether everything consists of indivisible particles and if we ever arrive at an answer it will be because of science. Whether there is free will depends primarily on how you define free will. Free will in the classical sense, i.e. arriving at a decision through an act of will that is independent of any constraints, is obviously impossible, unless one sees a random decision as free will. Since our will clearly depends on our brain, it cannot be seen as free. The existence of a god is still an open question, probably because this claim cannot be falsified as long as there is no clear definition of the concept of god. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist if you don't even now what it is you're trying to disprove. However, if a god exists, it might well be possible to prove this.
The existence of a god is still an open question, probably because this claim cannot be falsified as long as there is no clear definition of the concept of god. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist if you don't even now what it is you're trying to disprove. However, if a god exists, it might well be possible to prove this.
Can't you apply the same logic to, say, magical creatures? If so, then what is the point of even going down that path of trying to prove god is real?
If you say that something "possibly" exists, don't you need to provide some evidence as to why?
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence. The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
This is not an accurate account of Objectivism or Objectivist ethics.
Objectivism argues there are three axioms:
1. Existence exists --e.g., there is something 2. Consciousness -- e.g., existence is perceived 3. Identity -- e.g., that which exists is what it is
The pattern of argument involved in defending these axioms is, basically, the same: to attack the axioms you must implicitly rely on them. i.e., Anti-Objectivist: "No, nothing exists" Objectivist: "So you don't exist and neither does your argument. But you are relying on your argument existing in order to...make an argument."
Note that the axioms are very basic. "Existence exists" doesn't tell you if there is matter or, instead, a realm of platonic ideas, or if you are sleeping in the matrix or whatever. The point is simply that there is something whatever that something is.
Moving from the foundational axioms to ethics is a long road through metaphysics and epistemology. Objectivism certainly does NOT argue that non-violence is an axiom. In many situations, stealing or killing another person would be morally permissible even if they had done nothing to you: e.g., you wash up on an island with only one inhabitant. The inhabitant has collected all the fruit on the island and there is nothing else to eat. You ask him for some fruit in order to avoid starvation. He says "you'll have to kill me to get something to eat." Objectivists would NOT claim that it would be wrong to kill this man to get some food.
On July 14 2010 05:45 Epsilon8 wrote: I generally agree with anything Buddhist (I mean this in the way where being a 'Buddhist' is meant to describe the absence of any idea of what 'Buddhism' means). Usually any philosophy that has the idea of having to go beyond thoughts and ideas in order to actually know what 'reality' and 'life' are about I like.
My beliefs are 100 % on the spiritual side.
Other then that I've recently come across the idea of scientific materialism and because of that and all the things I had been thinking of and questioning before I no longer believe in science as being able to give us anything that we can call 'real'.
I will answer your questions but as with all things words and ideas are can never touch reality because of this my answers really don't mean a thing...
1 - The point to life is to realize what the point of life is. 2. Nothing outside of yourself can bring you happiness. Furthermore, nothing that is within can bring you happiness either. That is because within and without are opposites and by searching in either place you affirm your idea of separation with everything. Happiness is in unity, not separation. 3. My most important value is - "The crystal truth of compassion" - Jack Kerouac 4. Good and evil are opposites. From my point of view neither are true. Good and evil are illusions created by the mind based on the idea of separation. The root of all good and evil is this thought. What is truly 'good' is love. And love has no opposite. I use love in the sense of 'God' and I use 'God' in the sense of wholeness, consciousness, and knowing (that is the ability of the mind to be 'luminous' and know). 5. Wisdom ultimately has nothing to do with ideas and all that to do with what is beyond ideas and conceptualization. Because the root cause of conceptualization is judgement and the root of that is the belief in the separation of everything (the universe into discrete forms). Therefore, wisdom is intrinsic to all 'forms' in the universe because all 'forms' are actually not forms because there is no separation. So it goes like this. Your belief in separation causes you to judge and see others as separate from you. Because you judge you must necessarily eventually judge as 'good' or 'evil'. Judgement's in 'good' and 'evil' eventually lead to violence which reaffirms your belief in separation because you react and recoil from that violence from others and to yourself. Wisdom on the other hand which is beyond conceptualizations, that is to say beyond judgement. Wisdom knows no separation and as such cannot make judgement's and because of this it is truly wise and knows not other then itself. No fear.
Let me know what you think.
I agree on what you said about the opposites and separation. Polarity.
Perceiving things as disconnected from one another causes one to not see the larger picture and therefore create concepts of good and bad - and this is the nature of mind - pin things inside a box of a managable size for the reason of comparision and analisis.
Yet there is evil but its the question of what you define as evil, question of perspective. Also - would there be good if there wouldn`t be evil ? What is the origin of good then ? There is good in polarity and there is another good, which is beyond polarity.
I think perceiving things as both sovereign and united is to be in non-polarity and being in non-polarity is to be free of judgements which cause the overdose of 'negative' emotions like irritation, anger etc ... and to be free from this overdose is to be in a virtuos cycle instead of vicious cycle. Which is to say - live a much more joyous and meaningful life, though there is much more to this.
On July 14 2010 16:33 Sultan.P wrote: What is the point of life ?
Reproduce and survive... comfortably
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
I don't think anyone can have lasting happiness. I think that happiness is an emotion that you experience at a given point of time. I don't think anyone can constantly be happy at all moments. You have happy moments, sad moments, neutral moments... I would say try to make as many happy moments as possible and you achieve this either through pleasure, satisfaction from work or hobby and fulfillment of one's own goals and many other things that I'm sure are missing.
Happiness as an emotional state maybe cannot last forever but happiness as a non-emotional state can, can`t it ?
Haven`t you ever experienced a sadness that brought you joy ? You felt sad ... but deep inside you felt well with that sadness, it was meaningful and fullfiling, somehow. If that is possible then why would having lasting happiness be impossible ?
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
On July 14 2010 10:50 Gnosis wrote: That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
Yeah, it was a huge piece of text. I'll try to format it better this time.
I'll try to answer your questions as clearly as possibly in one go, since they are related.
The idea of emptiness is empty as well. The idea of emptiness is based on causes and conditions. Those are that we live in a universe that is 'empty' of inherent existence and this gives rise to the idea of emptiness. There is nothing inherent in the idea of all things being empty. So it is not really defining existence in any 'true' form because we have acknowledged that our definition of reality is empty as well.
There is a metaphor in Buddhism of reality being like a mirror. Though you may see a form in a mirror it does not actually mean that there is something there. The form you perceive in the mirror is dependent on causes and conditions. And so to is reality like the illusion of the mirror.
What this all amounts to is that since ultimate reality has no definable characteristics because all forms are 'empty' what we are really saying is that all things are whole (that is of one being). When our minds are first confronted with the idea of emptiness we take that to be an absence because it is an absence of what we had thought was there. However, because we now understand emptiness we understand that it was never really there in the first place and we start to realize that what emptiness actually means is that there is no possible way that you can separate something that is whole. I cannot distinguish the form of your body outside of another definable thing such as my body. Our bodies are also dependent on other causes and conditions to exist. This is because the universe is not a separate thing. It exists as one being. That being has an 'awareness' about it. So the emptiness that we perceived when trying to distinguish different forms was actually because that form did not exist, only the whole exists (the whole of existence).
Therefore, the only actual real experience you can have of truth is experiential and that experience is one of wholeness beyond forms. Such an experience cannot be communicated because the very act of communication is a separating into forms because communication must necessarily be based on subject, object, and action.
All this takes that one leap of faith that I discussed before which is that awareness is a quality of 'reality'/'emptiness'/'wholeness' itself. I would cite that this may not be wholly untrue because there is thousands of years of personal experience of accomplished meditators and practitioners backing this statement up. Whether or not you take that evidence to be actual evidence is up to you. Also for anyone to be able to argue anything you must at least make a tiny leap of faith so I do not believe this to be out of the scope of consideration.
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 two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
I agree on what you said about the opposites and separation. Polarity.
Perceiving things as disconnected from one another causes one to not see the larger picture and therefore create concepts of good and bad - and this is the nature of mind - pin things inside a box of a managable size for the reason of comparision and analisis.
Yet there is evil but its the question of what you define as evil, question of perspective. Also - would there be good if there wouldn`t be evil ? What is the origin of good then ? There is good in polarity and there is another good, which is beyond polarity.
I think perceiving things as both sovereign and united is to be in non-polarity and being in non-polarity is to be free of judgements which cause the overdose of 'negative' emotions like irritation, anger etc ... and to be free from this overdose is to be in a virtuos cycle instead of vicious cycle. Which is to say - live a much more joyous and meaningful life, though there is much more to this.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this post. More like stimulating conversation.
Is there evil? Or only what we perceive to be evil. If you acknowledge that there is a 'good' which is beyond polarity then you are acknowledging that there is a whole which has no opposites. Good and evil are factors of being sovereign and if in reality this is not true, then there is only 'good'.
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote: Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote: Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
On July 14 2010 10:50 Gnosis wrote: That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
Therefore, the only actual real experience you can have of truth is experiential and that experience is one of wholeness beyond forms. Such an experience cannot be communicated because the very act of communication is a separating into forms because communication must necessarily be based on subject, object, and action.
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
On July 14 2010 22:39 Epsilon8 wrote: All this takes that one leap of faith that I discussed before which is that awareness is a quality of 'reality'/'emptiness'/'wholeness' itself. I would cite that this may not be wholly untrue because there is thousands of years of personal experience of accomplished meditators and practitioners backing this statement up. Whether or not you take that evidence to be actual evidence is up to you. Also for anyone to be able to argue anything you must at least make a tiny leap of faith so I do not believe this to be out of the scope of consideration.
Because of how it treats suffering (and good and evil, among other things), it's a "leap of faith" I'm not willing to make. It does not provide answers coherent with how I experience reality.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I asked someone to refute Objectivism. Not my presentation of Objectivism.
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.
Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil. Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
On July 14 2010 23:19 AdamBanks wrote: Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil. Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
Stuff I've read: Neitzche, aristotle, plato.
Having reading Nietzsche and Aristotle, do you side with Nietzsche, or Aristotle? Or neither? In any case, as was pointed out by an earlier poster, this line of thinking "conflates what a society believes is moral with what is moral".
On July 14 2010 23:19 AdamBanks wrote: Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil. Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
Stuff I've read: Neitzche, aristotle, plato.
You mean you would let a thousand children die because you wanted to keep your own conscience secure? A thousand unique, innocdennt lives because you didn't have what it takes to stop an evil mann?
That sounds evil to me. As I said previously, my definition of evil is putting the needs of yourself to the point of harming the needs of the many.
But again, your a person, and I'm sure you have good reasons. Elaborate for a better discussion?
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 two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE
One does not prevent evil by doing evil. Evil begets evil much like racism. Those who are confronted with it must accept it and move on or be damned to become apart of its cycle in which we just pass it on to the next victim and so on and so on.
Once you kill 1 person to save 1000, the next time, it becomes much easier to kill 999 to save 1000. (A little extreme i know but i hope you see my point.)
I side more with Aristotle but enjoy Neitzhe much more.
Individual morality verses social morality verses true morality (if this last one exist, im not yet sure it does). Kind of reminds me of the question "what is true justice?" I do not think such a thing exist beyond anything more then a vague concept that incites unique definitions from just about everyone you would ask. It becomes fustrating when dealin with these terms as its so hard to establish a basic definition on which a majority can agree.
On July 14 2010 23:50 Boblion wrote: What can change the nature of a man ?
well if it is in man's nature to be changeable, that is to say "man is such that he is susceptible to change" then by man's vary nature can he be changed...
but can the operating principle, what is termed "nature", be changed? for this one has to ask questions like "is man's nature NECESSARY or coincidental"?
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
The difference is that this 'experience' of wholeness cannot be broken down into parts because then it would no longer be whole and would not mean the same thing and as such you cannot communicate it because for communication to work you must break it down. Communication is within the bounds of subject, object, and action.
The reason why the experience of wholeness can communicate truth is, as shown by the reasoning with emptiness before, it is the only thing that actually exists. A universe full of separate forms is only created within your own mind. Wholeness, the no separateness of the universe/reality/existence is what is real. And this is why this experience communicates truth.
On July 14 2010 23:10 Gnosis wrote:
Because of how it treats suffering (and good and evil, among other things), it's a "leap of faith" I'm not willing to make. It does not provide answers coherent with how I experience reality.
Buddhism has an explanation for this. If you accept that all things are not separate then all things are not separate from you as a discrete human being. If you take this as your 'base' thought upon which to build your paradigms and understandings anything else other then compassion, love, understanding, and peace is not possible. This is because if nothing is separate from you then all things are you. You have nothing to fear because there is nothing to harm.
Now this all depends on what you define as yourself. Taken on the view of emptiness, all the stories about who you are as a human being, your job, your family, your life experiences, that make up who you believe yourself to be are only emptiness. They do not actually exist they are only ideas in the mind.
From this perspective people who do 'evil' things are seen to be delusional. They believe in a separate self, ego entity, that exists and because of this they compartmentalize reality into good or bad, self or other, gain or loss. It is this very belief in separateness that spawns all the other thought systems of violence and fear.
Finally, to respond to what you said about it not being able to explain suffering. To have a full understanding of this would take a lot more delving into implications and other thought systems of Buddhism.
The Buddha specifically taught what it is that he taught in order to get rid of suffering. The four noble truths, the first things the Buddha every uttered are as follows :
1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused by clinging and vexation. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. The cessation of suffering is attained by following the Noble Eight Fold Path.
So in fact Buddhism does not actually not explain the originations of suffering. It is wholly aimed at uncovering it, understanding it, and attaining cessation of suffering.
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 two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE
In truth, you are probably correct. Philosophers do seem to be more concerned with "air-tight" logic than with worthwhile content. I suppose that is why I am not a fan...
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 two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE
In truth, you are probably correct. Philosophers do seem to be more concerned with "air-tight" logic than with worthwhile content. I suppose that is why I am not a fan...
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
The difference is that this 'experience' of wholeness cannot be broken down into parts because then it would no longer be whole and would not mean the same thing and as such you cannot communicate it because for communication to work you must break it down. Communication is within the bounds of subject, object, and action.
The reason why the experience of wholeness can communicate truth is, as shown by the reasoning with emptiness before, it is the only thing that actually exists. A universe full of separate forms is only created within your own mind. Wholeness, the no separateness of the universe/reality/existence is what is real. And this is why this experience communicates truth.
Do you find it odd, then, that you are trying to communicate this truth to me, using examples which breakdown "wholeness"? The reality is that experientially (as we do in communication), we break "reality" down into parts. I do not view the world as Neo views the matrix; I see my webcam as distinct from my printer, which I see as distinct from me, which I see as distinct from you, which I see distinct from my monitor, and so on. If we break down communication, we also break down the world around us, it is inherent to our functioning. I cannot call murder wrong and love good, if they are "empty"--the same part of the whole. It's a contradiction.
If all that makes absolutely no sense, then in the very least what you are suggesting is that we must "break down" reality to view it as a whole, and in this way we can experience truth. But we cannot break down reality through communication and convey that truth. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense.
On July 14 2010 23:53 Epsilon8 wrote: Buddhism has an explanation for this. If you accept that all things are not separate then all things are not separate from you as a discrete human being. If you take this as your 'base' thought upon which to build your paradigms and understandings anything else other then compassion, love, understanding, and peace is not possible. This is because if nothing is separate from you then all things are you. You have nothing to fear because there is nothing to harm.
Now this all depends on what you define as yourself. Taken on the view of emptiness, all the stories about who you are as a human being, your job, your family, your life experiences, that make up who you believe yourself to be are only emptiness. They do not actually exist they are only ideas in the mind.
From this perspective people who do 'evil' things are seen to be delusional. They believe in a separate self, ego entity, that exists and because of this they compartmentalize reality into good or bad, self or other, gain or loss. It is this very belief in separateness that spawns all the other thought systems of violence and fear.
Finally, to respond to what you said about it not being able to explain suffering. To have a full understanding of this would take a lot more delving into implications and other thought systems of Buddhism.
The Buddha specifically taught what it is that he taught in order to get rid of suffering. The four noble truths, the first things the Buddha every uttered are as follows :
1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused by clinging and vexation. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. The cessation of suffering is attained by following the Noble Eight Fold Path.
So in fact Buddhism does not actually not explain the originations of suffering. It is wholly aimed at uncovering it, understanding it, and attaining cessation of suffering.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote: There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
refuted going to sleep now
You should listen to Daimon, he just owned you pretty hard, you should probably beg for his forgiveness too right about now.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
There is a point to life? Why does there have to be?
Nothing. You die eventually and that's it.
I don't like value systems. I prefer intrinsic values.
Good and evil are anthropomorphic projections of human conscience on the world.
Wisdom at its basic level is decision making.
Fav. Philosophers: Wittgenstein, Kant (when his writing is clear-usually not though), Zen philosophy, Rousseau(though not really into political philosophy; minarcho-capitalism ftw), Descartes(so many modern ideas and fallacies can be traced back to his work), and Kuhn(not really a philosopher, but as an engineering major his examination of paradigm based science is valuable)
Also, Pinker is a good read for philosophers and psychologists alike.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of 'emptiness'. Emptiness does not mean absence of experience only absence of inherent existence.
Suffering is an experience. We cannot deny that there is suffering. Suffering is empty of any inherent existence but this does not mean that the experience of suffering is not possible. Just as even though all forms are empty does not mean that we do not experience so called forms.
From the monks point of view suffering is not inherent to existence or reality. It is only created as an experience by thought systems in your mind which are based on delusions about reality. I mean delusions in the sense that you believe in something which is not. Such as separation.
Therefore, suffering is an experience that people have but that does not mean that it was based on something that was real. Just because someone has hallucinations under the influence of drugs does not mean that the experience was based on anything real.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence. The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
This is not an accurate account of Objectivism or Objectivist ethics.
Objectivism argues there are three axioms:
1. Existence exists --e.g., there is something 2. Consciousness -- e.g., existence is perceived 3. Identity -- e.g., that which exists is what it is
The pattern of argument involved in defending these axioms is, basically, the same: to attack the axioms you must implicitly rely on them. i.e., Anti-Objectivist: "No, nothing exists" Objectivist: "So you don't exist and neither does your argument. But you are relying on your argument existing in order to...make an argument."
Note that the axioms are very basic. "Existence exists" doesn't tell you if there is matter or, instead, a realm of platonic ideas, or if you are sleeping in the matrix or whatever. The point is simply that there is something whatever that something is.
Moving from the foundational axioms to ethics is a long road through metaphysics and epistemology. Objectivism certainly does NOT argue that non-violence is an axiom. In many situations, stealing or killing another person would be morally permissible even if they had done nothing to you: e.g., you wash up on an island with only one inhabitant. The inhabitant has collected all the fruit on the island and there is nothing else to eat. You ask him for some fruit in order to avoid starvation. He says "you'll have to kill me to get something to eat." Objectivists would NOT claim that it would be wrong to kill this man to get some food.
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.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
I meant why can't logic and content be related. I thought you were referring to specific cases within analytic philosophy thus I asked for examples. Saying "some" philosophers care about arguing for the sake of arguing more than what they're arguing over is a very vague and unfounded statement.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of 'emptiness'. Emptiness does not mean absence of experience only absence of inherent existence.
Suffering is an experience. We cannot deny that there is suffering. Suffering is empty of any inherent existence but this does not mean that the experience of suffering is not possible. Just as even though all forms are empty does not mean that we do not experience so called forms.
From the monks point of view suffering is not inherent to existence or reality. It is only created as an experience by thought systems in your mind which are based on delusions about reality. I mean delusions in the sense that you believe in something which is not. Such as separation.
Therefore, suffering is an experience that people have but that does not mean that it was based on something that was real. Just because someone has hallucinations under the influence of drugs does not mean that the experience was based on anything real.
So what you are saying is that although suffering is an experience, it is an illusion? And if that's what you were saying, I would go the step further and say, therefore, there is no suffering.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
I meant why can't logic and content be related. I thought you were referring to specific cases within analytic philosophy thus I asked for examples. Saying "some" philosophers care about arguing for the sake of arguing more than what they're arguing over is a very vague and unfounded statement.
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
Sure, I never disagreed with this. To say things a different way, since I've retracted my previous comments. What could be said is that not everyone who argues is concerned with the truth (i.e. someone who likes to "win"), whereas generally everyone who is concerned with the truth, argues.
I just started studying philosophy. Not even philosophy yet (As in writing papers on specific arguments) but just basic logic. Anyhow, I just want to make a distinction between philosophy and "thinking about stuff", cause I get the impression that a lot of people think they're doing philosophy when they clearly aren't. I'm just saying... You wouldn't talk about the Pythagorean Theorem with a bunch of friends and actually think that you were doing what mathematicians were doing would you? Poor philosophers don't get any credit, I wonder what people think they actually do all day long? They do a lot more than flip your burgers at McDonalds. There's a lot more to philosophy.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
Isn't this true of analytic philosophers...circa 1960? As far as I know analytic philosophers don't subscribe to a particular doctrine. Instead analytic philosophy is more of a method, with a focus on clarity , logic, "linguistic precision", and it naturally aligns with science. Also contrary to what you say the Philosophy of ethics is still a very active field (especially in applied/bio ethics). And hey, even G.E. Moore made a significant contribution to ethics with his "Principia Ethica."
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
Sure, I never disagreed with this. To say things a different way, since I've retracted my previous comments. What could be said is that not everyone who argues is concerned with the truth (i.e. someone who likes to "win"), whereas generally everyone who is concerned with the truth, argues.
So you're basically accusing a random group of intellectuals of being bad philosophers and somehow connecting that opinion with your dismay at philosophy in general.
Before you, the reader, continue on, let me warn you that this is a sobering and direct analysis of the suppression framework and I would advise everyone who reads this to remain neutral as they examine my answers. If you find the information feeling too “heavy” or evoking fear, set it aside or return to it later. This story is not for everyone. Some will feel threatened by it and react with a sense of alarm, and others will feel like someone pulled the rug from underneath them. If you feel any of this, you may not be prepared to confront these realities
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).
If 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.
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.
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.
Pretty much.
Rand makes logicians cry. But what do logicians know about logic?
So what you are saying is that although suffering is an experience, it is an illusion? And if that's what you were saying, I would go the step further and say, therefore, there is no suffering.
Yes that is what I am saying, to suffering is an illusion. But I want to make it clear here that it is an illusion based on the idea of emptiness. Emptiness means the absence of inherent existence so when we say that things are empty we don't mean that the don't exist we mean that they don't exist inherently, that is outside of causes and conditions.
Suffering being empty doesn't mean it doesn't exist it means that it doesn't have an inherent existence. So yes it does exist. But only within certain causes and conditions.
It is an illusion in the sense that we think it actually exists in and of itself wholly not dependent on other things to define it i.e. a human being who goes through suffering.
The only thing that is inherently existent is the whole of everything because it is a singular existence unopposed by opposites.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
To learn, what you occupy is a thought created realm which works much like a projection does when your in cinema's, your interpeting what is projected from the light of the projector so your perception is the light being projected and images it creates. So life purpose is to learn from this illusion to develop your consciousness into higher understandings of yourself and your roll in exsistance. This gets more complex as each density which is proper term for each level of this school so to speak has it own criteria.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Ascension into a 4th density service to other experience, the 3rd density we occupy now does not know true happiness you know a distortion of truth in which even when your happy there is parts of you unhappy from your experiences, this experience has been spoken about by prophets it called 'heaven on earth'.
What are your most important values ?
Values are determined by the consciousness of the experiencing vesel, the values given by direction by propherts are designed to assist in best possibility timeline outcome, hence your commandments are more a option of a guide to help you avoid bad karma.
What is good and what is evil ?
Perceptions of actions of Selfishness or Selflessness, in end all must choose between STS or STO right now humanity is STS with a understanding of STO but realm is polarized more into STS hence your reality is one of struggling.
What is Wisdom ?
Abilitys to understand knowledge and use to best of intended ability, this does not mean wisdom is lacked in those who choose the negative paths there is many wise cunning beings that humanity do not yet even know exsist.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
See above.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
I am a god a watcher a angel a alien whatever you choose to see me as, I am in human form who knows humanitys future who is part taking in it and has decided that transitions best course is destructive only then are humans modivated to think at deeper levels and act together this was shown in events of past that humanity shows more compassion during times of disaster.
I am Adonai Christ.
I know this because of reasons not many could understand because people do not know who they are, who they think they are is nothing but a distortion of there true self.
This site is designed to help you understand deeper wisdom.
This is recommended as the collective in which contacted such individuals is part of myself as well but also part of yourself yet you do not hear the voice because of the noise around you.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
To learn, what you occupy is a thought created realm which works much like a projection does when your in cinema's, your interpeting what is projected from the light of the projector so your perception is the light being projected and images it creates. So life purpose is to learn from this illusion to develop your consciousness into higher understandings of yourself and your roll in exsistance. This gets more complex as each density which is proper term for each level of this school so to speak has it own criteria.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Ascension into a 4th density service to other experience, the 3rd density we occupy now does not know true happiness you know a distortion of truth in which even when your happy there is parts of you unhappy from your experiences, this experience has been spoken about by prophets it called 'heaven on earth'.
What are your most important values ?
Values are determined by the consciousness of the experiencing vesel, the values given by direction by propherts are designed to assist in best possibility timeline outcome, hence your commandments are more a option of a guide to help you avoid bad karma.
What is good and what is evil ?
Perceptions of actions of Selfishness or Selflessness, in end all must choose between STS or STO right now humanity is STS with a understanding of STO but realm is polarized more into STS hence your reality is one of struggling.
What is Wisdom ?
Abilitys to understand knowledge and use to best of intended ability, this does not mean wisdom is lacked in those who choose the negative paths there is many wise cunning beings that humanity do not yet even know exsist.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
See above.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
I am a god a watcher a angel a alien whatever you choose to see me as, I am in human form who knows humanitys future who is part taking in it and has decided that transitions best course is destructive only then are humans modivated to think at deeper levels and act together this was shown in events of past that humanity shows more compassion during times of disaster.
I am Adonai Christ.
I know this because of reasons not many could understand because people do not know who they are, who they think they are is nothing but a distortion of there true self.
This site is designed to help you understand deeper wisdom.
This is recommended as the collective in which contacted such individuals is part of myself as well but also part of yourself yet you do not hear the voice because of the noise around you.
Asher eh yeh
The Law Of One? Correct me if I am wrong but the beings in higher realms form collectives. If they recognize that all is one what need is there to form a collective?
So what you are saying is that although suffering is an experience, it is an illusion? And if that's what you were saying, I would go the step further and say, therefore, there is no suffering.
Yes that is what I am saying, to suffering is an illusion. But I want to make it clear here that it is an illusion based on the idea of emptiness. Emptiness means the absence of inherent existence so when we say that things are empty we don't mean that the don't exist we mean that they don't exist inherently, that is outside of causes and conditions.
Suffering being empty doesn't mean it doesn't exist it means that it doesn't have an inherent existence. So yes it does exist. But only within certain causes and conditions.
It is an illusion in the sense that we think it actually exists in and of itself wholly not dependent on other things to define it i.e. a human being who goes through suffering.
The only thing that is inherently existent is the whole of everything because it is a singular existence unopposed by opposites.
Suffering is a modervation to ask a question, it is simlar to pains you go through to build muscle it takes that work in order to develop the outcome you seek. Suffering is not a intention the creator wanted for you but a product you created by your state of ignorance. Suffering is indeed a illusion as is everything but it is a illusion you are part of so hence understanding it would be the best for you so you can avoid further suffering.
You interpet the events that occur we simply create the enviroment of learning, what you do with that enviroment under the laws created for you is your 'Freewill' understand that limits had to be placed so that those out of balance could not destroy the school your learning in, those limits are both there to protect you but can also be malipulated to bind you as has forces you are yet to remember done.
The question you should ask is 'Why do we suffer' then the answer can be eventually given all knowledge exsists in waves once a question is asked those waves become manifest as the answer, so we could involve abit of physics if you like and explain the process which takes place in order for a object to be manifest.
Understand those who suffer created it as a concequence of there own lifes choices either in this incarnation or a co-exsisting past one, it is good to show compassion and help when asked but higher understanding is to allow the soul to experience its suffering so it learns from it.
Remember the creator only gives you love 'gravity' to mold into what you want to mold it into it is not the creator who creates the evil you experience or your perspectives on suffering in which can be changed at any moment, It is you.
Hence term to see in new light is to forgive those who brought you suffering that moment in illusion of time is then healed and no longer binds you. To seek vengence will only create a game of tenis the ball will travel between both courts until one you ends up hurt, then because one is hurt one creates karma in which one then also will be hurt at a later experience.
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
To learn, what you occupy is a thought created realm which works much like a projection does when your in cinema's, your interpeting what is projected from the light of the projector so your perception is the light being projected and images it creates. So life purpose is to learn from this illusion to develop your consciousness into higher understandings of yourself and your roll in exsistance. This gets more complex as each density which is proper term for each level of this school so to speak has it own criteria.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Ascension into a 4th density service to other experience, the 3rd density we occupy now does not know true happiness you know a distortion of truth in which even when your happy there is parts of you unhappy from your experiences, this experience has been spoken about by prophets it called 'heaven on earth'.
What are your most important values ?
Values are determined by the consciousness of the experiencing vesel, the values given by direction by propherts are designed to assist in best possibility timeline outcome, hence your commandments are more a option of a guide to help you avoid bad karma.
What is good and what is evil ?
Perceptions of actions of Selfishness or Selflessness, in end all must choose between STS or STO right now humanity is STS with a understanding of STO but realm is polarized more into STS hence your reality is one of struggling.
What is Wisdom ?
Abilitys to understand knowledge and use to best of intended ability, this does not mean wisdom is lacked in those who choose the negative paths there is many wise cunning beings that humanity do not yet even know exsist.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
See above.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
I am a god a watcher a angel a alien whatever you choose to see me as, I am in human form who knows humanitys future who is part taking in it and has decided that transitions best course is destructive only then are humans modivated to think at deeper levels and act together this was shown in events of past that humanity shows more compassion during times of disaster.
I am Adonai Christ.
I know this because of reasons not many could understand because people do not know who they are, who they think they are is nothing but a distortion of there true self.
This site is designed to help you understand deeper wisdom.
This is recommended as the collective in which contacted such individuals is part of myself as well but also part of yourself yet you do not hear the voice because of the noise around you.
Asher eh yeh
The Law Of One? Correct me if I am wrong but the beings in higher realms form collectives. If they recognize that all is one what need is there to form a collective?
Before unification of the One, One forms One within oneself the collective is your self in all experiences and worlds combining as one thought group, hence you collectively work together such as we are doing now from the many densitys and associated dimensions hence can communicate information not obtainable in specific realms across thresholds.
Suffering is a modervation to ask a question, it is simlar to pains you go through to build muscle it takes that work in order to develop the outcome you seek. Suffering is not a intention the creator wanted for you but a product you created by your state of ignorance. Suffering is indeed a illusion as is everything but it is a illusion you are part of so hence understanding it would be the best for you so you can avoid further suffering.
You interpet the events that occur we simply create the enviroment of learning, what you do with that enviroment under the laws created for you is your 'Freewill' understand that limits had to be placed so that those out of balance could not destroy the school your learning in, those limits are both there to protect you but can also be malipulated to bind you as has forces you are yet to remember done.
The question you should ask is 'Why do we suffer' then the answer can be eventually given all knowledge exsists in waves once a question is asked those waves become manifest as the answer, so we could involve abit of physics if you like and explain the process which takes place in order for a object to be manifest.
Understand those who suffer created it as a concequence of there own lifes choices either in this incarnation or a co-exsisting past one, it is good to show compassion and help when asked but higher understanding is to allow the soul to experience its suffering so it learns from it.
Remember the creator only gives you love 'gravity' to mold into what you want to mold it into it is not the creator who creates the evil you experience or your perspectives on suffering in which can be changed at any moment, It is you.
Hence term to see in new light is to forgive those who brought you suffering that moment in illusion of time is then healed and no longer binds you. To seek vengence will only create a game of tenis the ball will travel between both courts until one you ends up hurt, then because one is hurt one creates karma in which one then also will be hurt at a later experience.
Adonai bless
I have been arguing for Buddhism which shares many of the philosophical views of the Law of One but none of the theology.
Before unification of the One, One forms One within oneself the collective is your self in all experiences and worlds combining as one thought group, hence you collectively work together such as we are doing now from the many densitys and associated dimensions hence can communicate information not obtainable in specific realms across thresholds.
We call this path to completition.
Adonai bless
This sounds similar to A Course in Miracles. Its an interesting idea.
Suffering is a modervation to ask a question, it is simlar to pains you go through to build muscle it takes that work in order to develop the outcome you seek. Suffering is not a intention the creator wanted for you but a product you created by your state of ignorance. Suffering is indeed a illusion as is everything but it is a illusion you are part of so hence understanding it would be the best for you so you can avoid further suffering.
You interpet the events that occur we simply create the enviroment of learning, what you do with that enviroment under the laws created for you is your 'Freewill' understand that limits had to be placed so that those out of balance could not destroy the school your learning in, those limits are both there to protect you but can also be malipulated to bind you as has forces you are yet to remember done.
The question you should ask is 'Why do we suffer' then the answer can be eventually given all knowledge exsists in waves once a question is asked those waves become manifest as the answer, so we could involve abit of physics if you like and explain the process which takes place in order for a object to be manifest.
Understand those who suffer created it as a concequence of there own lifes choices either in this incarnation or a co-exsisting past one, it is good to show compassion and help when asked but higher understanding is to allow the soul to experience its suffering so it learns from it.
Remember the creator only gives you love 'gravity' to mold into what you want to mold it into it is not the creator who creates the evil you experience or your perspectives on suffering in which can be changed at any moment, It is you.
Hence term to see in new light is to forgive those who brought you suffering that moment in illusion of time is then healed and no longer binds you. To seek vengence will only create a game of tenis the ball will travel between both courts until one you ends up hurt, then because one is hurt one creates karma in which one then also will be hurt at a later experience.
Adonai bless
I have been arguing for Buddhism which shares many of the philosophical views of the Law of One but none of the theology.
Before unification of the One, One forms One within oneself the collective is your self in all experiences and worlds combining as one thought group, hence you collectively work together such as we are doing now from the many densitys and associated dimensions hence can communicate information not obtainable in specific realms across thresholds.
We call this path to completition.
Adonai bless
This sounds similar to A Course in Miracles. Its an interesting idea.
Your perception on reality is your choice, this doesnt mean it cant be infuelenced, sometimes good ideas can be infuelenced in ways that a good idea is then used to create a evil affect. Example is the corruption of the teachings given in past by 'Christ' in which modern religions do not truely hold the true christianity any longer.
All in this world is distorted even we can not give you all answers we are only permited to give you a seed to plant you then must look after it and grow it into your own tree of knowledge.
Universe is product of all ideas, humanity doesnt yet understand themself so is not ready for meeting the higher communitys which observe them. Some of you however are going to get a opportunity soon to be transfered consciously into a higher density experience in which the laws in such realm are less restricting you would consider such a experience on earth as magical you will meet these communitys soon those who transcend during the harvest and you will be taught by the masters of this cycle and meet many different lifeforms during your experience.
This 3rd density planet however that we currently occupy will go through the prophercised apocalyse which will occur in stages in which those who experience it are well deserving, understand that laws of concequence exsist to keep a balance within the duality of exsistance there is always a concequence to action done against another part of self, nature will play a roll in the karma to come but so will unforseen forces ones you only think about in your movies it will be a shocking time for humanity but a necessary time.
The soul of this planet "GAIA" is moving into her new body as she is birthing herself into a new reality the corpse left behind will eventually resemble its prestoric state it will be a molten ball of plasma 'lake of fire' this is eventually this isnt your near future alot is to occur first but that is the fate for some souls,(history repeats) this includes the forming of solar systems perhaps consciousness also experiences the primodial process and learned 'WoW' millions of years of development then through the whole humanoid wars and learning once more up until point simlar of now when another harvest comes.
Now imagine what world will resemble when all that is left is the psychopaths and evil people of this world and the selfish. Quickly will it fall into disaray we are talking insanity this has been prophercized by many cultures and they are correct now you can understand the true meaning of the biblical prophercys as well right now your in those times it is the laying of foundation that is occuring now.
None of this matters if dont believe me or not those who understand it have a chance those who dont have no chance, this is your own doing so when the reality finally is revealed for what it is and you realize your accountable for everything you do in all lifetimes do not blame the creator, look in the mirror thats the culprit.
Your perception on reality is your choice, this doesnt mean it cant be infuelenced, sometimes good ideas can be infuelenced in ways that a good idea is then used to create a evil affect. Example is the corruption of the teachings given in past by 'Christ' in which modern religions do not truely hold the true christianity any longer.
Are you saying Buddhism is one of these?
On July 15 2010 03:10 Maji wrote:
Universe is product of all ideas, humanity doesnt yet understand themself so is not ready for meeting the higher communitys which observe them. Some of you however are going to get a opportunity soon to be transfered consciously into a higher density experience in which the laws in such realm are less restricting you would consider such a experience on earth as magical you will meet these communitys soon those who transcend during the harvest and you will be taught by the masters of this cycle and meet many different lifeforms during your experience.
How does one attain the necessary requirements to be given a 'chance' to advance to fourth density?
If you know all this why are you still in third density? And on TL for that matter?
Everytime one projects a negative thought intention or writes a negative intended words at another or performs a negative action against another or themself, you create karma. This I have done myself as we have a part of us like a program called 'Ego' a false indentiy that exsists and knows it exsists because of our ignorance to ourself it feeds apon conflict and is reason you get mad in games or curse out things or feel jealous all of which are not true emotions, 'Greed and Jealousy' nothing to do with creator a program creator by what you call in your religion 'Satan', these two things cause so much chaos in your world like you wouldnt believe and yet humanity has not yet realized it, you say excuses like it just human nature are you sure that is what was meant to be genetically who you are or could it be a alteration of your genetics reason such exsists and could such 'false Emotions' be the trigger to all of your problems including illnesses, what is a illness do humans really understand it or is medicine corrupt is what you eat and drink really good for you we ask you this what is the modervation behind your world system right now 'thats where the answer lies'.
Something for you all to think about considering way you all treat one another on this forum, testing of waters occurs many times you will never know when a angel is performing a test the opportuniys arise many times it can be a call for help that you ignore or opportunity to return something you found, this world is all about lessons it is time you use the tools we gave you to figure it out and stop being a lazy ignorant race that lets wolfs in sheeps clothes rule your world and create it for you.
Your perception on reality is your choice, this doesnt mean it cant be infuelenced, sometimes good ideas can be infuelenced in ways that a good idea is then used to create a evil affect. Example is the corruption of the teachings given in past by 'Christ' in which modern religions do not truely hold the true christianity any longer.
Universe is product of all ideas, humanity doesnt yet understand themself so is not ready for meeting the higher communitys which observe them. Some of you however are going to get a opportunity soon to be transfered consciously into a higher density experience in which the laws in such realm are less restricting you would consider such a experience on earth as magical you will meet these communitys soon those who transcend during the harvest and you will be taught by the masters of this cycle and meet many different lifeforms during your experience.
How does one attain the necessary requirements to be given a 'chance' to advance to fourth density?
If you know all this why are you still in third density? And on TL for that matter?
No buddism is less distorted compared to other religions it is closest to truth, there is of course a variation within each that becomes distorted as people add own ideas to the teachings.
Infact if you must follow a organized religion we do not recommended it as setting limitiations creates blockages, then buddism would be best choice.
Because I am on contract to remain and be put under all temptations distortions humanity has been put under so that the events determined that occur during the coming transition are fair, I too must do the work to ascend myself and dont worry ive made plenty of selfish mistakes during my journey but dont let them hold you back understand that the moment is all that maters everything is forgivable if the intent is pure hence concept rependence, you cant lie to yourself some go to repent but truely do not mean it the heart knows and is a higher mind than humanity understands.
All places are mediums of learning, considering my ego self enjoys the game I see no purpose in not speaking through this vesel at this time, remember we explained about leveled consciousness.
To make yourself eliable for the 4th density it requires to understand the lessons of 3rd density, we can share some of these but we would advise you understand Karma we will also tell you the physical representation is force known as ineria so look at what ineria does and you will understand purpose of karma and how to avoid creating it for yourself and to find the path you truely desire in heart. We would advise meditation.
So what you are saying is that although suffering is an experience, it is an illusion? And if that's what you were saying, I would go the step further and say, therefore, there is no suffering.
Yes that is what I am saying, to suffering is an illusion. But I want to make it clear here that it is an illusion based on the idea of emptiness. Emptiness means the absence of inherent existence so when we say that things are empty we don't mean that the don't exist we mean that they don't exist inherently, that is outside of causes and conditions.
Suffering being empty doesn't mean it doesn't exist it means that it doesn't have an inherent existence. So yes it does exist. But only within certain causes and conditions.
It is an illusion in the sense that we think it actually exists in and of itself wholly not dependent on other things to define it i.e. a human being who goes through suffering.
The only thing that is inherently existent is the whole of everything because it is a singular existence unopposed by opposites.
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?
Suffering is a modervation to ask a question, it is simlar to pains you go through to build muscle it takes that work in order to develop the outcome you seek. Suffering is not a intention the creator wanted for you but a product you created by your state of ignorance. Suffering is indeed a illusion as is everything but it is a illusion you are part of so hence understanding it would be the best for you so you can avoid further suffering.
You interpet the events that occur we simply create the enviroment of learning, what you do with that enviroment under the laws created for you is your 'Freewill' understand that limits had to be placed so that those out of balance could not destroy the school your learning in, those limits are both there to protect you but can also be malipulated to bind you as has forces you are yet to remember done.
The question you should ask is 'Why do we suffer' then the answer can be eventually given all knowledge exsists in waves once a question is asked those waves become manifest as the answer, so we could involve abit of physics if you like and explain the process which takes place in order for a object to be manifest.
Understand those who suffer created it as a concequence of there own lifes choices either in this incarnation or a co-exsisting past one, it is good to show compassion and help when asked but higher understanding is to allow the soul to experience its suffering so it learns from it.
Remember the creator only gives you love 'gravity' to mold into what you want to mold it into it is not the creator who creates the evil you experience or your perspectives on suffering in which can be changed at any moment, It is you.
Hence term to see in new light is to forgive those who brought you suffering that moment in illusion of time is then healed and no longer binds you. To seek vengence will only create a game of tenis the ball will travel between both courts until one you ends up hurt, then because one is hurt one creates karma in which one then also will be hurt at a later experience.
Adonai bless
I have been arguing for Buddhism which shares many of the philosophical views of the Law of One but none of the theology.
Before unification of the One, One forms One within oneself the collective is your self in all experiences and worlds combining as one thought group, hence you collectively work together such as we are doing now from the many densitys and associated dimensions hence can communicate information not obtainable in specific realms across thresholds.
We call this path to completition.
Adonai bless
This sounds similar to A Course in Miracles. Its an interesting idea.
Your perception on reality is your choice, this doesn’s mean it can’t be influenced, sometimes smiley ideas can be influenced in ways that a smiley idea is then used to create a frowny affect. Example is the corrution of the teachings given in the past by ‘Micky Mouse’ in which modern day religions do not truely hold the true Mouseianity and longer.
All in this world is distorted we can not give you all answers we are only permitted to give you a seed to plant, you must then look after it and grow it into your own tree of knowledge. (basically we are metaphorical gardeners lol! In fact just thinking about me in a “we can not give you all answers” kinda superior way is almost making me blow my cultivated seed)
This 3rd density planet however, which we currently occupy will go through the prophercised apocalypse. I’m not going to provide any reasoning behind why I say this because this is a thread about philosophy, it’s not like attempting to rationlise and justify assertions is actually important in anyway... ANYWAY, where was I? Oh yeah! 3rd densities, well you see theres this thing called duality of existence, its complicated but it might help if i throw around some more unsubstantiated terms and ideas until it feels like your reading the inane ramblings of a psychopath.
So yeah basically shocking times, im talking movie BOOM, SWOOSH, OWWW! Kinda thing, Karma and unforseen forces, i mean i know it’s kinda oxymoronical to proclaim something to be happening that is unforseen when i’ve just forseen it but hey u dig me yeah?
The soul of this planet, which can be verified by laying with your ear to the ground and tickling it until it giggles, is moving into her new body. I’m setting up a body warming party, me, vishnu and mary poppins are hosting but theres gonna be so many cool people there! But yeah, this planet, she’s called GAIA and she’s sensitive about her weight, it’s starting to get to a point where the equator no longer goes all the way round her so plz don’t mention it or she might rain. But prestoric states, yeh well ok a molten ball of plasma or ‘lake of fire’ as it’s called among us “know hows” and some souls will be chilling (lol irony pun) in it altho not all will. Where was I, ah yeah humanoid wars and WoW, basically thats gonna happen until theres another harvest when all of the WoW players will put down their keyboard, and the humanoids will cease their wars and bask in the glimmering fields of “my own fucked up fantasy”
Now imagine what the world will resemble when all that is left is me and other people like me on this convuluted fantasy of existence (oh and the selfish). Quickly it will fall into disaray I am talking insanity this has been prophesised by loads of peeps like me, so it must be true right! So yeah loads of these prophercies have come true, and by true i mean they are vague and interpretive enough that you could literally explain them in anyway you want (read above for examples!) but yeah it’s occuring now FEAR!!!!!
None of this matters if you don’t believe me, and if you do believe me I suggest you invest in some psychiatric help but those who do believe me, apart from being like dumb and that, will understand (oxymoron aside) they have a chance! Those who don’t have no chance, this is your own doing, and i don’t actually say what “this” means because that would force me to actually say something with substance and journey into the scary realms of “justifying the nonesense i say”.
Now for something pretty vacuous yet satisfyingly pretentious for people to mayb take what I say seriously. errrm... hang on...
The light of truth can shine even in the darkest of nights, to see it you need only lift up your head and open your eyes. + Show Spoiler +
(it looks abit like a batsignal and if u listen closely u might hear "na na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na na BATMAN.... BATMAN... BATMAN!!!!)
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).
If 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.
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.
Suffering is a modervation to ask a question, it is simlar to pains you go through to build muscle it takes that work in order to develop the outcome you seek. Suffering is not a intention the creator wanted for you but a product you created by your state of ignorance. Suffering is indeed a illusion as is everything but it is a illusion you are part of so hence understanding it would be the best for you so you can avoid further suffering.
You interpet the events that occur we simply create the enviroment of learning, what you do with that enviroment under the laws created for you is your 'Freewill' understand that limits had to be placed so that those out of balance could not destroy the school your learning in, those limits are both there to protect you but can also be malipulated to bind you as has forces you are yet to remember done.
The question you should ask is 'Why do we suffer' then the answer can be eventually given all knowledge exsists in waves once a question is asked those waves become manifest as the answer, so we could involve abit of physics if you like and explain the process which takes place in order for a object to be manifest.
Understand those who suffer created it as a concequence of there own lifes choices either in this incarnation or a co-exsisting past one, it is good to show compassion and help when asked but higher understanding is to allow the soul to experience its suffering so it learns from it.
Remember the creator only gives you love 'gravity' to mold into what you want to mold it into it is not the creator who creates the evil you experience or your perspectives on suffering in which can be changed at any moment, It is you.
Hence term to see in new light is to forgive those who brought you suffering that moment in illusion of time is then healed and no longer binds you. To seek vengence will only create a game of tenis the ball will travel between both courts until one you ends up hurt, then because one is hurt one creates karma in which one then also will be hurt at a later experience.
Adonai bless
I have been arguing for Buddhism which shares many of the philosophical views of the Law of One but none of the theology.
Before unification of the One, One forms One within oneself the collective is your self in all experiences and worlds combining as one thought group, hence you collectively work together such as we are doing now from the many densitys and associated dimensions hence can communicate information not obtainable in specific realms across thresholds.
We call this path to completition.
Adonai bless
This sounds similar to A Course in Miracles. Its an interesting idea.
Your perception on reality is your choice, this doesn’s mean it can’t be influenced, sometimes smiley ideas can be influenced in ways that a smiley idea is then used to create a frowny affect. Example is the corrution of the teachings given in the past by ‘Micky Mouse’ in which modern day religions do not truely hold the true Mouseianity and longer.
All in this world is distorted we can not give you all answers we are only permitted to give you a seed to plant, you must then look after it and grow it into your own tree of knowledge. (basically we are metaphorical gardeners lol! In fact just thinking about me in a “we can not give you all answers” kinda superior way is almost making me blow my cultivated seed)
This 3rd density planet however, which we currently occupy will go through the prophercised apocalypse. I’m not going to provide any reasoning behind why I say this because this is a thread about philosophy, it’s not like attempting to rationlise and justify assertions is actually important in anyway... ANYWAY, where was I? Oh yeah! 3rd densities, well you see theres this thing called duality of existence, its complicated but it might help if i throw around some more unsubstantiated terms and ideas until it feels like your reading the inane ramblings of a psychopath.
So yeah basically shocking times, im talking movie BOOM, SWOOSH, OWWW! Kinda thing, Karma and unforseen forces, i mean i know it’s kinda oxymoronical to proclaim something to be happening that is unforseen when i’ve just forseen it but hey u dig me yeah?
The soul of this planet, which can be verified by laying with your ear to the ground and tickling it until it giggles, is moving into her new body. I’m setting up a body warming party, me, vishnu and mary poppins are hosting but theres gonna be so many cool people there! But yeah, this planet, she’s called GAIA and she’s sensitive about her weight, it’s starting to get to a point where the equator no longer goes all the way round her so plz don’t mention it or she might rain. But prestoric states, yeh well ok a molten ball of plasma or ‘lake of fire’ as it’s called among us “know hows” and some souls will be chilling (lol irony pun) in it altho not all will. Where was I, ah yeah humanoid wars and WoW, basically thats gonna happen until theres another harvest when all of the WoW players will put down their keyboard, and the humanoids will cease their wars and bask in the glimmering fields of “my own fucked up fantasy”
Now imagine what the world will resemble when all that is left is me and other people like me on this convuluted fantasy of existence (oh and the selfish). Quickly it will fall into disaray I am talking insanity this has been prophesised by loads of peeps like me, so it must be true right! So yeah loads of these prophercies have come true, and by true i mean they are vague and interpretive enough that you could literally explain them in anyway you want (read above for examples!) but yeah it’s occuring now FEAR!!!!!
None of this matters if you don’t believe me, and if you do believe me I suggest you invest in some psychiatric help but those who do believe me, apart from being like dumb and that, will understand (oxymoron aside) they have a chance! Those who don’t have no chance, this is your own doing, and i don’t actually say what “this” means because that would force me to actually say something with substance and journey into the scary realms of “justifying the nonesense i say”.
Now for something pretty vacuous yet satisfyingly pretentious for people to mayb take what I say seriously. errrm... hang on...
The light of truth can shine even in the darkest of nights, to see it you need only lift up your head and open your eyes. + Show Spoiler +
(it looks abit like a batsignal and if u listen closely u might hear "na na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na na BATMAN.... BATMAN... BATMAN!!!!)
Falcon Punch
All I can say is effort you put into doing that post just made your stay on 3rd density longer brother we did previously explain the concequences of such actions. Your 'intention' you should ask yourself why you would do such; it is a imbalance in yourself and is a great example of problem of this world.
We will again warn you that your words affect your realitys experience, you may choose to edit post as not to place mockery as it is a tool of a fool. The laughing fool is not happy when his head is cut by his king if he fails to perform for the crowd.
On July 15 2010 03:58 XeliN wrote: I hear you loud and clearly brother may your words forever resonate in the hearts and minds of the chosen.
Atroll iconfess
Sarcasm brother is the other tool of fools, you will get no were while your ego controls your every thought and action it is in your best interests to ask yourself why you responded as you did was it really you or a result of your lifes experiences and how you interpeted it from the infuelences around you? We are no joke we are who we say we are what I tell you in this forum is what will occur it is for your benefit that this occured, do not laugh at others for the one who laughs at another is a fool in themself.
Self serving activity of judgement without objective investigation leads to ignorance brother, such effort to find thread and link could been spent better, we cant prevent you being a fool but we can tell you what being a fool leads too.
Those who look into topics such as one being discused here are of higher intellect. Even if that person does not have as good as english writen ability as one such as yourself they are of higher intellect to use there mind to question reality itself.
wait in 8 pages, nobody has given the classic answer yet?
the answer is...42 =D
in seriousness though. zhuangzi is a personal favorite, he has some very interesting views. as far as i see (which could be rather little, being an engineer with a rather practical mindset), its kind of an attitude that what we know and what we can do is not very much, but that there's nothing wrong with that. but at the same time, its no excuse to remain ignorant, and to be as open to new viewpoints, and as little judgmental as possible.
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.
So I've been reading this in-depth. I just have to laugh. The article is your typical article trying to determine Objectivism as being incorrect. The problem with said "typical article," is that the person writing it has no idea what they are talking about.
So I've been reading this in-depth. I just have to laugh. The article is your typical article trying to determine Objectivism as being incorrect. The problem with said "typical article," is that the person writing it has no idea what they are talking about.
Objectivism is required to use what knowledge you have available to create a understanding on your enviroment, your ability of using knowledge is determined by your wisdom which is aquired by your experience, but it is only useful if done with a mind that is open to growth one that is a full cup cant not be refilled.
But dont laugh at another, it is there current understanding allow them to have it share what you know to be truth but also always be open to questioning your own perspective of truth as well.
I think we should keep this thread open to all view points even ones that people might think are out there like the Law of One. It is a philosophy whether or not you believe it to be and making insulting comments to it is a form of prejudice. One of TL's philosophies is to respect all view points.
The Law of One is not that bad of an idea and reading anything at all even if you don't agree with it will always expand your own knowledge, it will never harm you.
If you have serious criticism of the Law of One you should read up on it first and then try to take it apart in an argumentative fashion like a 'real' philosopher would do rather than resorting to insults.
Maji you should respect others as well. Don't call them fools. lol.
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.
good, yes souls define own interpetation of what is given hence 'freewill', this is within the limits created of course. We will also add that at any moment you can change a affect on yourself by seeing it in a different light, since time in truth is non linear it is all frames of moments occuring simintanously your past still exsists at a different position on the wave, your future exsists as a temporal possibility that as consciousnes flows into becomes the experience of reality. It is possible for you at any moment to change how you responded emotional to a event which you may have percieve at the time as suffering which may have created imbalance in yourself in which you aloud.
Above poster has a grasp on truth of situation it is good to see.
On July 15 2010 04:27 Epsilon8 wrote: I think we should keep this thread open to all view points even ones that people might think are out there like the Law of One. It is a philosophy whether or not you believe it to be and making insulting comments to it is a form of prejudice. One of TL's philosophies is to respect all view points.
The Law of One is not that bad of an idea and reading anything at all even if you don't agree with it will always expand your own knowledge, it will never harm you.
If you have serious criticism of the Law of One you should read up on it first and then try to take it apart in an argumentative fashion like a 'real' philosopher would do rather than resorting to insults.
Maji you should respect others as well. Don't call them fools. lol.
Intent is not to call them fool brother but to use a analogy to reveal to them how they are acting...
On July 15 2010 04:14 n3mo wrote: wait in 8 pages, nobody has given the classic answer yet?
the answer is...42 =D
in seriousness though. zhuangzi is a personal favorite, he has some very interesting views. as far as i see (which could be rather little, being an engineer with a rather practical mindset), its kind of an attitude that what we know and what we can do is not very much, but that there's nothing wrong with that. but at the same time, its no excuse to remain ignorant, and to be as open to new viewpoints, and as little judgmental as possible.
Read a bit of Zhuanzi as part of an Asian history class. Being a philosophy major at the time it was a pretty fun side-dish. I have to say however that I found the whole thing completely alien and discouraging.
I don't think we gain much in including him in the western thought cannon. Yes it has some interesting paradigms but it really doesn't offer the same level of reason and logic we have come to expect from later western philosophy. I don't like saying that without delving too deep into it but like I said, what I read was discouraging.
On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote: 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>.
I wouldn't agree with this.
There's not that much empirical data to support it, and there's not that much empirical data to detract from it - but anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'inherent' capabilities people have matter much less than the work they put into things.
[edit] Which is, in fact, precisely why the free market is more egalitarian than people give it credit for.
I am for real can predict future events as required too as well.
The philosphy of One epsilon is very good to adapt you are on right path, I would also advise look into hidden hand material but do not judge the source.
On July 15 2010 04:51 Maji wrote: I am for real can predict future events as required too as well.
The philosphy of One epsilon is very good to adapt you are on right path, I would also advise look into hidden hand material but do not judge the source.
Maji, just a polite suggestion that you may take or ignore as you wish. If you wish to add a signature to posts on tl you can do so by going to your profile at the top left and adding one. In fact, I see you have already done this. If you wish your signature to say Adonai bless you can go to your profile and change it. This may save you time in the long run.
On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote: 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>.
I wouldn't agree with this.
There's not that much empirical data to support it, and there's not that much empirical data to detract from it - but anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'inherent' capabilities people have matter much less than the work they put into things.
[edit] Which is, in fact, precisely why the free market is more egalitarian than people give it credit for.
It was a weak analogy, to be sure.
A better analogy would be that a person born without legs cannot walk. Prosthetics aside.
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).
If 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.
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.
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.
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.
What 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 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).
If 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.
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.
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.
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 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).
If 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
Sorry for the poor phrasing, I'll try to express it another way. If we think of evolution as involving reproduction (for the survival of a species), then why haven't species tended to evolve the "ability" to live to great ages, so that a species may reproduce more. In fact, wouldn't the survival of a species be all the more "secured" if procreation is possible from a very young age, while possible up to and through great ("old") age?
Simple. Because living long age is bad. Long lived beings can't adapt as easy to outside factors as short lived ones. The purpose of life in a deterministic sense of view is dictated by the genes, and they don't care how long you live. They will be passed with reproduction, and in that respect, they have indeed a long life. The better they are, the longer their life. And by life, i mean the time they exist.
On July 15 2010 08:48 Duelist wrote: Simple. Because living long age is bad. Long lived beings can't adapt as easy to outside factors as short lived ones. The purpose of life in a deterministic sense of view is dictated by the genes, and they don't care how long you live. They will be passed with reproduction, and in that respect, they have indeed a long life. The better they are, the longer their life. And by life, i mean the time they exist.
To ask another question, then, why do they 'care" about being passed on?
They care as much as virus. They don't control it. They come to exist by accident, as a mutation. If they happen to be a good mutation, and by good i mean good for themselves, for their survival and replication, since they might be good or bad for their bearer, they keep existing, otherwise they disappear.
the genes that survive and replicate, do survive and replicate. self-replicating systems have a tendency to propagate. you may as well be asking, "why does the earth care about rotating?"
"That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote: So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be".
An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care.
Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
On July 15 2010 09:14 Duelist wrote: "That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote: So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be".
An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care.
Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
On July 15 2010 09:14 Duelist wrote: "That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote: So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be".
An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care.
Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
About the "why does it care about surviving" i already replied, about the "why is it the way it is" It is the way it is, because it happened to be this way or because it was made this way by someone or something, if you believe in a greater power. If the universe had another set of rules, if an hydrogen proton would weight more, or the electric charge of an electron would be higher, or if the initial conditions of the earth that allowed the first living beings were different, the genes would be different. Scientists speculate those universes actullay exist, and belong to dimensions above the 4th, up to the 11th. Sometimes luck or lack of is a factor. Some animals could not exist today, because some predators happened to found to their last hatch of eggs.
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?
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
Ok, sorry. You start by creating a false dychotomy, because it's not science and religion, but science and phisolophy, being that religion and spirituality are actually close to irrelevant to this discussion, because faith based on random supernatural will very hardly be on the basis to prove or gain knowledge about anything.
Secondly, science for now cannot explain why because it is not advanced enough. We don't know yet every factual information there is to know about our universe and others if they exist. When we do, we will know at least how, and when it started. Depending on the how, the why might then be susceptible of being reasoned through.
Thirdly you introduced a possibly false fact. The "why" is not necessarily subjective. There may very well be a very objective reason, nothing but deterministic of why things came to be. It could be objective, logical.
Finally about this
"Respect my position and understand that whether or not you think I have a valid position does not mean that I do not."
That is true if, and only if, neither of our positions is sustained on facts, because as you know, aggainst facts there are no arguments.
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?
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote:
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why for now and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
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?
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
Please do not edit my posts back to me. Respect my position and understand that whether or not you think I have a valid position does not mean that I do not. Please put some thought into your rhetoric and present arguments for why you believe so.
Saying science cannot explain 'for now' is the same as saying "God wills it". Its based on nothing actually factual.
On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote: I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
The thing is, science can explain how things are. Philosophy might cast doubt on whether or not thats how they "actually" are, but it cant make that doubt anything to worry about.
On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote: I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
The thing is, science can explain how things are. Philosophy might cast doubt on whether or not thats how they "actually" are, but it cant make that doubt anything to worry about.
Oh really? Not even the fact that science itself, just like all other belief systems, has made underlying assumptions about reality. Science is not an 'objective' understanding of the world. It is more like a scientific philosophy. And in todays society we have something more like 'scientific materialism'.
Everything is based off of a first belief. For science it is that the world can actually be truly objective and that material things is all there is. If it is not material, then it must somehow be based off of material properties.
Science doesn't offer any justification for why this is. It merely makes the assumption that this is the way the universe is.
If you seriously disagree with me I will give you these works to possibly provide further information then what I will argue.
One major flaw of science is that it has not ever been able to solve the so called 'hard problem of consciousness'.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
On July 15 2010 09:14 Duelist wrote: "That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote: So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be".
An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care.
Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
About the "why does it care about surviving" i already replied, about the "why is it the way it is" It is the way it is, because it happened to be this way or because it was made this way by someone or something, if you believe in a greater power. If the universe had another set of rules, if an hydrogen proton would weight more, or the electric charge of an electron would be higher, or if the initial conditions of the earth that allowed the first living beings were different, the genes would be different. Scientists speculate those universes actullay exist, and belong to dimensions above the 4th, up to the 11th. Sometimes luck or lack of is a factor. Some animals could not exist today, because some predators happened to found to their last hatch of eggs.
It seems we've arrived at a very basic question. Thanks for your time.
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
Those are specific, my beliefs - in this instance - are the reverse of Buddhist teachings (suffering is the result of emptiness (sunyata), happiness is the result of desire). If in this light a Buddhist monk will tell me that my beliefs are errant, then does this not mean that Buddhist teaching accurately describes reality, and that these things have "inherent existence" as functions of the universe? (i.e. they are discovered, unable to be empty themselves) That is to say that "desire causes suffering" was always true, independent of anyone being able to desire, or suffer, etc.?
On July 15 2010 10:24 Epsilon8 wrote: Oh really? Not even the fact that science itself, just like all other belief systems, has made underlying assumptions about reality. Science is not an 'objective' understanding of the world. It is more like a scientific philosophy. And in todays society we have something more like 'scientific materialism'.
The only important assumption made by science is that perception matches reality, and even that can be done away with if you really want to.
Everything is based off of a first belief. For science it is that the world can actually be truly objective and that material things is all there is. If it is not material, then it must somehow be based off of material properties.
That is not an assumption that is readily contestable. It is mathematically true that I exist - the question is what, precisely, that means, what my perceptions are and what they reflect, and so on and so forth.
Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective way things work, and arguably on the assumption that our perceptions match "objective" reality (but the second assumption isn't necessary at all). You cannot deny this assumption without, essentially, asserting that everything happens at random.
One major flaw of science is that it has not ever been able to solve the so called 'hard problem of consciousness'.
You say that as if the very existence of that problem isn't itself debated by philosophers. Dennett (and I) would deny that there is any problem in explaining a state of conscious experience with reference to neurological events.
Moreover, only a small part of the hard problem of consciousness is a question that science is actually concerned with - that of how it is that some organisms have experiences. This is a failing mostly because the definitions of half of the words in that question are themselves debatable and contested. Given time, there is nothing to suggest science will not in fact be able to answer that question.
On July 15 2010 10:49 Yurebis wrote: Science hasn't overcome the is-ought gap, and I don't think it ever will.
The is-ought gap cannot be objectively overcome as a matter of pure logic. That does not mean it is actually a problem, however. Nothing changes if science goes from taking as a given "causality is true" to taking as an assumption "causality is true". The opposite assumption is laughably unworkable and isn't held by anyone at all seriously.
An assumption that one has to make is, for all intents and purposes, no longer an assumption.
On July 15 2010 10:49 Yurebis wrote: Science hasn't overcome the is-ought gap, and I don't think it ever will.
The is-ought gap cannot be objectively overcome as a matter of pure logic. That does not mean it is actually a problem, however. Nothing changes if science goes from taking as a given "causality is true" to taking as an assumption "causality is true". The opposite assumption is laughably unworkable and isn't held by anyone at all seriously.
An assumption that one has to make is, for all intents and purposes, no longer an assumption.
I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying.
On July 15 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote: I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying.
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
Those are specific, my beliefs - in this instance - are the reverse of Buddhist teachings (suffering is the result of emptiness (sunyata), happiness is the result of desire). If in this light a Buddhist monk will tell me that my beliefs are errant, then does this not mean that Buddhist teaching accurately describes reality, and that these things have "inherent existence" as functions of the universe? (i.e. they are discovered, unable to be empty themselves) That is to say that "desire causes suffering" was always true, independent of anyone being able to desire, or suffer, etc.?
No. All things are empty of inherent existence. Just as the idea of emptiness is also empty because it is based on the fact that things are empty so to is the reason for suffering being desire empty. This is because you suffer because you desire because things are empty. When you desire you suffer because what you are desiring isn't really there, that is, existing inherently.
Desire being the cause of suffering is empty because it is based on the emptiness of things.
On July 15 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote: I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying.
Who needs to achieve a scientific ought?
No one in particular, I'm just reminding the people here using evolutionary theories that such gap exists, before they go jumping over it. I think someone here already did but I'm not going to review and quote atm.
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
Those are specific, my beliefs - in this instance - are the reverse of Buddhist teachings (suffering is the result of emptiness (sunyata), happiness is the result of desire). If in this light a Buddhist monk will tell me that my beliefs are errant, then does this not mean that Buddhist teaching accurately describes reality, and that these things have "inherent existence" as functions of the universe? (i.e. they are discovered, unable to be empty themselves) That is to say that "desire causes suffering" was always true, independent of anyone being able to desire, or suffer, etc.?
No. All things are empty of inherent existence. Just as the idea of emptiness is also empty because it is based on the fact that things are empty so to is the reason for suffering being desire empty. This is because you suffer because you desire because things are empty. When you desire you suffer because what you are desiring isn't really there, that is, existing inherently.
Desire being the cause of suffering is empty because it is based on the emptiness of things.
If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists.
The only important assumption made by science is that perception matches reality, and even that can be done away with if you really want to.
That is not an assumption that is readily contestable. It is mathematically true that I exist - the question is what, precisely, that means, what my perceptions are and what they reflect, and so on and so forth.
Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective way things work, and arguably on the assumption that our perceptions match "objective" reality (but the second assumption isn't necessary at all). You cannot deny this assumption without, essentially, asserting that everything happens at random.
Arguing that you exist because it is 'mathematically' true is overlooking the fact that mathematics are not real. Mathematics is something that has been created with the mind. The only thing that math can do is describe the way something works, that is, its procedural nature in existence - cause and effect. Whether or not it actually co-relates to anything inherent to existence is another matter.
I'm not saying that things happen at random rather I'm denying that any kind of inherent law based on objectivity could exist. Postulating these inherent laws upon which an objective reality exists is making a leap of faith from subjectivity to objectivity.
On July 15 2010 10:46 kzn wrote:
You say that as if the very existence of that problem isn't itself debated by philosophers. Dennett (and I) would deny that there is any problem in explaining a state of conscious experience with reference to neurological events.
Moreover, only a small part of the hard problem of consciousness is a question that science is actually concerned with - that of how it is that some organisms have experiences. This is a failing mostly because the definitions of half of the words in that question are themselves debatable and contested. Given time, there is nothing to suggest science will not in fact be able to answer that question.
Neurological events will never be able to explain awareness and consciousness because science is based on objectivity and consciousness is based on subjectivity. There is no subjectivity in the cells of your brain. Nor is there subjectivity in the cold hard atoms that science postulates to exist. Nor is there soft or hard, hot or cold, blue or yellow.
I'm not saying that there are correlations between conscious experience and neurological events, this is true. I would instead suggest that these correlations could be a complementary effect to some other kind of force, that is not objective.
There is no reason to infer that some organisms have experience and others do, only that some have experiences and can communicate it in a way intelligible to the human species and some cannot communicate this.
Objective science can never explain subjective matters precisely because it is based in a paradigm of objectivity.
What is the point of life? To be happy, I think, but that could mean being sure that someone else is happy rather than yourself. I had a discussion with my brother while he was writing a paper for his psych class about the happiness of people in the holocaust right before they were about to die. His argument was that every person who knew what was about to happen was intensely sad, or angry. He said that they couldn't find happiness in the moment, so they judged their lives on how they had lived it and what their social statuses were. He was right, what happiness is their in the seconds before you are murdered? I believe, however, that it was possible to be happy knowing that there were other people not in your situation, and knowing that (if it was true) some of your family/friends may yet survive. My belief in this situation is incredibly optimistic, and I doubt anyone really felt this way (as I know that I myself wouldn't), but it is still possible.
What can bring you lasting happiness? I really think lasting happiness comes from love. In my short life I have experienced success in friendship, financial success, and academic success, but the best feelings that I have felt have come from feeling the extreme acceptance from someone that is love. If love truly does fade as I'm told, than acceptance as a whole would be the next best thing.
What are your most important values? I value the ability to be judgmental and deductive, all while maintaining composure and manners. People who accept anyone no matter who they are. are weak in my eyes, and their total acceptance of anyone takes away from the differences of "acceptance" and "coexistance." This said, I think that everyone deserves a chance to be judged equally, and thus I believe that racism has no place in a society of intellectually mature people.
What is good and what is evil? My ideals of "good and evil" have changed so many times throughout my childhood and as I entered adulthood. I used to think that people who were good would fight for the greater good of the common people and for their ideals, however now I think it's the complete opposite. I think anyone who disrupts the peace of a society and causes deaths, all for their (respectively personal) ideals, is evil. What right do these terrorists have to challenge the day to day functioning of civilizations? If you want change, appeal through the government and get support, don't kill fathers and brothers for your selfish justifications. That said, anyone who supports peace (North America, European Union, Israel, South Korea, South Africa[I know I'm leaving a lot of peaceful countries and regions out, these are the 5 big ones that came to mind] ) in my opinion is "good." Some will say that I'm "brainwashed" by western civilization, but I support these countries in their functions. The idea that these countries and organizations aren't led by religion but by reason is the prime factor of my support.
What is Wisdom? I think wisdom is the ability to detach yourself emotionally from a situation, and judge it from an unbiased stand point. And, if your standing on the wrong side of the line, having the courage and pride to say that you were wrong, and cross to the right side. If more people had the ability to do this, I think there would be a lot less head butting on a global scale.
On July 15 2010 11:28 Gnosis wrote: If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists.
Hmm.. you've taken me to a point that I have never thought about before.
I would say that desire causes suffering because emptiness exists (not inherently existent) and because of this what you will desire you will never be able to attain. So in fact the reason that desire causes suffering is not because it is some kind of inherent law but because of the cause of emptiness rendering everything that you perceive to be truly attainable.
On July 15 2010 11:32 Epsilon8 wrote: Arguing that you exist because it is 'mathematically' true is overlooking the fact that mathematics are not real. Mathematics is something that has been created with the mind. The only thing that math can do is describe the way something works, that is, its procedural nature in existence - cause and effect. Whether or not it actually co-relates to anything inherent to existence is another matter.
Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there.
I'm not saying that things happen at random rather I'm denying that any kind of inherent law based on objectivity could exist. Postulating these inherent laws upon which an objective reality exists is making a leap of faith from subjectivity to objectivity.
Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption.
Neurological events will never be able to explain awareness and consciousness because science is based on objectivity and consciousness is based on subjectivity. There is no subjectivity in the cells of your brain. Nor is there subjectivity in the cold hard atoms that science postulates to exist. Nor is there soft or hard, hot or cold, blue or yellow.
I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett.
What is the point of life ? Happiness, self enlightenment, objectives, challenge Without these things living wouldn't be as satisfying nor would have a point What can bring you lasting happiness ? Doing what you love What are your most important values ? Honesty,Mercy, Patience What is good and what is evil ? They are non-existant, there is always more than one truth Both of us are right, and both of us are wrong? What is Wisdom ? I liked what the first poster said of "Ability to simplify the complicated." and I'll throw in questioning and yearning for more
Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there.
I never said there was not an I. What I did say was that it is not possible to jump from subjective view points to objective correlations. This does not mean that you can create some kind of paradigm of thought, which is based on your subjective view point, that in some way describes how phenomena seem to function to you. It does mean however that just because this system describes how it works it does not mean this system is intrinsic to existence.
Objectivity means that wholly beyond all subjectivity what is being referred to must exist. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact but a subjective definition. Objectivity knows no 1 + 1 = 2. Phenomena may emulate this law you have created in your head and therefore you may think it to be true but, once again, this does not mean that there is some kind of law intrinsic to existence.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption.
You cannot correctly argue under these conditions. An assumption which is not an assumption? What you choose to call it does not make it anything other then an assumption. You can deny this and say your assumption is better then others and as such we should take it as the right assumption. Doing so is like saying that your fake World Cup soccer ball is not the real one but it is closer to the real one then mine so in fact we should call yours the real World Cup soccer ball.
The very fact that you 'must' make this assumption to give any true validity to science shows that science is not held up on anything that can be justifiably real in any sense.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote: I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett.
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
On July 15 2010 12:24 Epsilon8 wrote: Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
I'm getting bored of the rest of the argument so I'm just gonna bow out of that.
You should not, of course, be swayed by any authority. You should be swayed by arguments. The most explicit setting out of Dennett's argument against the subjective aspect of consciousness (at least insofar as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness) is in Consciousness Explained in Chapters 10 through 12 (iirc). You can probably find a copy of the book via less legal means, but I'm not sure.
Its fairly complicated and I just wrote a thesis that was partially on it so I'm not going to massacre it by trying to simplify it.
Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there.
I never said there was not an I. What I did say was that it is not possible to jump from subjective view points to objective correlations. This does not mean that you can create some kind of paradigm of thought, which is based on your subjective view point, that in some way describes how phenomena seem to function to you. It does mean however that just because this system describes how it works it does not mean this system is intrinsic to existence.
Objectivity means that wholly beyond all subjectivity what is being referred to must exist. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact but a subjective definition. Objectivity knows no 1 + 1 = 2. Phenomena may emulate this law you have created in your head and therefore you may think it to be true but, once again, this does not mean that there is some kind of law intrinsic to existence.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption.
You cannot correctly argue under these conditions. An assumption which is not an assumption? What you choose to call it does not make it anything other then an assumption. You can deny this and say your assumption is better then others and as such we should take it as the right assumption. Doing so is like saying that your fake World Cup soccer ball is not the real one but it is closer to the real one then mine so in fact we should call yours the real World Cup soccer ball.
The very fact that you 'must' make this assumption to give any true validity to science shows that science is not held up on anything that can be justifiably real in any sense.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote: I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett.
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
He's done some compelling work on free will, consciousness and all that epistemology fun.
While I'm not going to pretend to be educated enough to hold my own in these arguments, I do, nevertheless enjoy following this discussion and do routinely work to further my education on these subjects in my free time. I find the arguments on whether or not consciousness is subjective or not very interesting.
One "opponent" of Dennet that I find interesting is David Chalmers. He has a "take it seriously" approach to the problem of consciousness that I find insanely sane. His book "The Conscious Mind" is always on my to-read list, but I've always been too coward to get into it. =)
Another non-mainstream view on the topic comes from mathematician and theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who some might know from the work together with Stephen Hawking. He wrote a book called "The Emperor's New Mind", which tries to argue that the mind-computer analogy is necessarily wrong, because Turing Machines cannot model the quantum behaviour of the brain.
Also, Hilary Putnam, the original spreader of the computational view of the mind (who happens to be my hero on philosophical method), has written against it, in "Representation and Reality".
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote: That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
maybe there's no reason "why" in some spiritual sense. but the cause is understood: genes program them that way. if you want to learn what causes genes to program organisms to want to survive, you need to study natural selection.
On July 15 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote: I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying.
Who needs to achieve a scientific ought?
No one in particular, I'm just reminding the people here using evolutionary theories that such gap exists, before they go jumping over it. I think someone here already did but I'm not going to review and quote atm.
is-ought is a problem for moral philosophers, not a problem for evolutionary theory. i think any sensible person would agree that there is no magical, objective standard of what ought to be. we as a society decide what ought to be based on our common goals.
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote: So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
well, genetic mutations are random. some are beneficial in survival+reproduction, some are neutral, and some are harmful. oftentimes, harmful mutations are weeded out of the gene pool, because the organisms that contain these genes don't survive long enough to reproduce. now, would you ask, "why do those harmful mutations want to commit suicide?" of course not; they are random mutations with no brains and therefore no desires. it's just that the world automatically becomes full of genes that do survive and replicate.
What can bring you lasting happiness ? To stop trying to chase happiness in material objects or relationships.
What are your most important values ? Striving for being honest at all times.
What is good and what is evil ? Good and evil only exist in the mind and differs from person to person.
What is Wisdom ? Wisdom is not claiming to 'know' anything. When you do that you wing-clip your own learning.
What is your personal answer to these questions ? ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ? Haven't studied any philosophers and do not particularly like any philosophy, I simply agree or disagree with them. Discovering new ways to look at the world is always sweet
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome. Philosophical cogitations on what? Just like quantum-physics I don't think there's any particular philosophy that is good to live by on its own. What I like about philosophy is that gets your brain going, as you come to a new realization your new frame of mind will create more questions in need of an answer.
On July 15 2010 15:45 Raisauce wrote: I know it's 4chan, but this is a really interesting philosophical story. + Show Spoiler +
On July 15 2010 11:28 Gnosis wrote: If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists.
Hmm.. you've taken me to a point that I have never thought about before.
I would say that desire causes suffering because emptiness exists (not inherently existent) and because of this what you will desire you will never be able to attain. So in fact the reason that desire causes suffering is not because it is some kind of inherent law but because of the cause of emptiness rendering everything that you perceive to be truly attainable.
Through diagnosing the cause of human suffering - and applying it to all people - you are describing reality as it actually is (or else there would be many different, independent sources of human suffering). Emptiness, as I'm sure you know, states that nothing has an essential, fixed, or independent nature. As such, even emptiness itself is empty, at least, our "idea" of emptiness is empty. Two things should be in our consideration 1) the idea of emptiness and 2) emptiness (as a matter of fact). But in any case, if emptiness is empty, why is there opposition to its changing?
So you see, I suffer because I can only love that which is impermanent.
Through diagnosing the cause of human suffering - and applying it to all people - you are describing reality as it actually is (or else there would be many different, independent sources of human suffering). Emptiness, as I'm sure you know, states that nothing has an essential, fixed, or independent nature. As such, even emptiness itself is empty, at least, our "idea" of emptiness is empty. Two things should be in our consideration 1) the idea of emptiness and 2) emptiness (as a matter of fact).
I'm slightly confused on what your point here is exactly. Are you still of the opinion that there is a contradiction here?
On July 15 2010 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
But in any case, if emptiness is empty, why is there opposition to its changing?
Existence could not be if there were not emptiness. Lack of emptiness would really mean lack of impermanence. In this case everything would be static and would not be able to interact or effect anything else. Emptiness is necessary for existence to be.
It is an emergent function of phenomena. But this does not mean it is somehow inherently existent. Because its existence is still dependent on a 'reality' that functions in this way.
On July 15 2010 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
So you see, I suffer because I can only love that which is impermanent.
Would not the solution be to love that which must exist (and I'm going to make an apparent contradiction here) inherently for impermanence and emptiness to?
On July 15 2010 12:24 Epsilon8 wrote: Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
I'm getting bored of the rest of the argument so I'm just gonna bow out of that.
You should not, of course, be swayed by any authority. You should be swayed by arguments. The most explicit setting out of Dennett's argument against the subjective aspect of consciousness (at least insofar as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness) is in Consciousness Explained in Chapters 10 through 12 (iirc). You can probably find a copy of the book via less legal means, but I'm not sure.
Its fairly complicated and I just wrote a thesis that was partially on it so I'm not going to massacre it by trying to simplify it.
I meant the comment about Daniel Dennet to draw attention to how you seemed to be citing Daniel Dennet as though the very mention of his name would bring me to the 'understanding' of truth. And that you are in some way allied and support each others arguments.
I will take a look at the book when I get time.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I'm slightly confused on what your point here is exactly. Are you still of the opinion that there is a contradiction here?
I believe Buddhism would teach that the teaching of emptiness is empty (that is, it requires minds to think it up, exchange it, etc.), but as it describes reality accurately (according to Buddhism), then the description itself cannot be empty, and therefore, emptiness cannot be empty. On this view I see emptiness as a facet of reality being discovered, rather than invented (as not the product of minds, and therefore inherently existing). If that is very confusing, I apologize. Essentially, "emptiness" as a teaching is "empty" by virtue that it must be discovered, but emptiness as a description of reality is not, by virtue that it describes reality.
This is not something that is "dependent" on reality--it is reality.
On July 15 2010 23:59 Epsilon8 wrote: Existence could not be if there were not emptiness. Lack of emptiness would really mean lack of impermanence. In this case everything would be static and would not be able to interact or effect anything else. Emptiness is necessary for existence to be.
It is an emergent function of phenomena. But this does not mean it is somehow inherently existent. Because its existence is still dependent on a 'reality' that functions in this way.
I think one of the few honest things I could say at this point, is that I simply reject the "step of faith" that I must take to come to this belief. I do not agree that if something has a Platonic form (an essential nature), that therefore it is unable to interact or effect anything else. To poorly argue from a conclusion to a premise: I believe I have an essential nature, I can affect and interact with things, therefore, things with essential natures can interact and effect things. I believe this would constitute a sort of lame argument from experience. As far as I see it now, it all comes down to that bit of "faith".
On July 15 2010 23:59 Epsilon8 wrote: Would not the solution be to love that which must exist (and I'm going to make an apparent contradiction here) inherently for impermanence and emptiness to?
I'm very much enjoying the dialogue, so please don't take my replies as "pushy" or however else I may be misconstrued (I have a very bad habit of "going after" people). But anyway, my solution would be to reject the system, because it does not account for my experiences.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
For me it is his tone and argument style. I retract my former statement of thinking poorly.
I just plain do not like him. Period. To be honest though, I've only ever seen video lectures of him and short essays hes written, I've never read one of his books. I'll look into reading one.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
For me it is his tone and argument style. I retract my former statement of thinking poorly.
I just plain do not like him. Period. To be honest though, I've only ever seen video lectures of him and short essays hes written, I've never read one of his books. I'll look into reading one.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
I believe Buddhism would teach that the teaching of emptiness is empty (that is, it requires minds to think it up, exchange it, etc.), but as it describes reality accurately (according to Buddhism), then the description itself cannot be empty, and therefore, emptiness cannot be empty. On this view I see emptiness as a facet of reality being discovered, rather than invented (as not the product of minds, and therefore inherently existing). If that is very confusing, I apologize. Essentially, "emptiness" as a teaching is "empty" by virtue that it must be discovered, but emptiness as a description of reality is not, by virtue that it describes reality.
This is not something that is "dependent" on reality--it is reality.]
' Yes, I see where you are going now. I agree with you now. Except on one minor point. And is probably because I haven't been explaining myself very well. Emptiness does not constitute itself as reality. What does constitute itself as reality is the underlying cause of why emptiness exists. This cause can be deduced by examining the implications of emptiness.
Much of this we both have already discussed :
Emptiness means that perceived phenomena when examined cannot be established as having any inherent existence. This is because phenomena are defined by a relative point to everything else. From this point we understand that when we perceive phenomena they are like illusions because what we perceive is not actually in any definite way what we perceive it to be. From this point we reason that if we cannot define any kind of phenomena without a reference point then said phenomena and reference point do not exist outside of each other and therefore must not be separate. We then reason that everything we perceive or that can possibly exist cannot be separate from everything else because that would mean that we would not be able to define it. At this point we realize that it is wholeness that is the cause of emptiness. If everything were not whole and of one thing then necessarily emptiness could not exist.
This concept of wholeness has parallels in many other persuading arguments as well such as modern science.
On July 16 2010 01:26 Gnosis wrote: I think one of the few honest things I could say at this point, is that I simply reject the "step of faith" that I must take to come to this belief. I do not agree that if something has a Platonic form (an essential nature), that therefore it is unable to interact or effect anything else. To poorly argue from a conclusion to a premise: I believe I have an essential nature, I can affect and interact with things, therefore, things with essential natures can interact and effect things. I believe this would constitute a sort of lame argument from experience. As far as I see it now, it all comes down to that bit of "faith".
I do not think I can make any further argument on the 'step of faith' aspect of this. However, I would like to say that, and you may already know this, in Buddhism we do have an essential nature and that nature is what I described in the above paragraph. Of one being and existence upon which phenomena in which emptiness can be seen arise.
I would like to hear your reasoning for things of Platonic nature to interact and effect each other. I am well versed in Buddhism where they discredit this idea and so have not really thought about the opposite.
In my mind the general idea of emptiness and what it implies is so incontrovertible that I no longer believe that it is a step of faith. However, I do realize that this does not mean that I am right.
I am very interested in how you perceive of things to exist.
On July 16 2010 01:26 Gnosis wrote: I'm very much enjoying the dialogue, so please don't take my replies as "pushy" or however else I may be misconstrued (I have a very bad habit of "going after" people). But anyway, my solution would be to reject the system, because it does not account for my experiences.
No you are not being pushy at all. The dialogue has also been very enjoyable for me. I very rarely get to talk to anyone about philosophy and TL was the last place I expected it from. But you know - TL can solve anything.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
fair enough
perhaps the "why" questions you're asking are unanswerable because they're invalid (like asking what the square root of the color orange is), and the "how" questions are what are worth asking
On July 16 2010 02:39 Win.win wrote: perhaps the "why" questions you're asking are unanswerable because they're invalid (like asking what the square root of the color orange is), and the "how" questions are what are worth asking
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote: Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide?
You should read "Venus on the Half-Shell" of Philip José Farmer. Quote: At the end of this book you will find the Definitive Answer to the Ultimate Question
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote: Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide?
While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view.
Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
What is the point of life ? To succeed in some way that benefits yourself and others (both criteria need to be filled).
What can bring you lasting happiness? A sense that I have made progress towards the goal of life (read above).
What are your most important values ? Empathy, vanity, and ambition.
What is good and what is evil ? Evil is to chose not to help someone even though that help would mean no personal investment from your part, alternatively to cause suffering that requires personal investment from your part. being good is being anything not evil.
What is Wisdom? Wisdom comes from an internal, or otherwise, discussion about a subject and it is the premeditated and well thought out answers or arguments from that discussion that is wisdom.
On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote: Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide?
While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view.
Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide.
By suicide I mean, ending ones own life How's ending one's life a motivation for the pursuit of life? hmmm
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from).
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote: Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from).
of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
What is the point of life ? There is more than one imo. But making yourself happy without hurting anyone is at least one of mine. Making others happy is also kinda important.
What can bring you lasting happiness? I doubt life-lasting happiness really exists. There must be some darkness so that people can appreciate the light.
What is Wisdom? "Knowledge comes from finding the answers, but understanding what the answers mean is what brings wisdom"
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from).
of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection. Because it seems to me that for natural selection to work as a process, information is assumed.
(And Epsilon, I'm getting to your reply eventually)
On July 17 2010 01:19 Win.win wrote: of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
On July 17 2010 02:26 Gnosis wrote: I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection.
I think this question implies that natural selection exists when to my mind it is only a process which succeeds in creating specific results that we then call natural selection.
Just an aside. Have we ended our previous dialogue lol?
On July 17 2010 02:26 Gnosis wrote: I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection.
I think this question implies that natural selection exists when to my mind it is only a process which succeeds in creating specific results that we then call natural selection.
Just an aside. Have we ended our previous dialogue lol?
No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work.
On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote: Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide?
While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view.
Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide.
By suicide I mean, ending ones own life How's ending one's life a motivation for the pursuit of life? hmmm
You're right in that I was pretty unclear with that, rereading my wording. If you want a deeper explanation I'd just tell you that complex lifeforms like humans with higher intelligence are capable of rejecting or slightly repressing their base functions and programming. That humans like all other species are driven to do things like eat, reproduce, use the bathroom seems pretty obvious. But we can also starve ourselves intentionally, choose to be celibate, or repress our urges to use the restroom, for example, if it serves some higher cause.
If a person believes that his or her life has become so vile and disgusting or useless or even a drain to the whole of humanity, then maybe that person might consider suicide as a way to relieve perceived pain. Imagine if there was an alien race that invaded Earth and told you that they would kill 1000 people a day, including one person you loved, each day you were still alive. You would either kill yourself or try your best (perhaps suicidally) to break out, free or help your friends.
On July 17 2010 02:31 Gnosis wrote: No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work.
Oh cool . Sorry if I sounded pushy I'm just eager to keep discussing.
The way I have always perceived of the idea of natural selection working, and most of this will be familiar to you, is that first you have the 'empty space' of 'chemicals and energy'. Planets, stars, all that jazz forms. On one planet, lets call this planet "Earth" (lol), chemicals are swirling around in its primordial soup forming different permutations over time. Sooner or later a stable self-replicating chemical is found via this permutation process. There is no information in the processes of its environments and none in its random (Edited: Random meaning it does not change towards a specific goal) permutations it is merely an inevitable effect of these processes.
Similarly, the self-replicating chemical slowly undergoes more permutations until it forms what we would perceive as a life form. The way in which this formed had nothing to do with information and all to do with the processes of its environment and its chemical nature.
Therefore, in natural selection what we are seeing is not an intelligent system of evolution but a random process of environment effecting chemical, and these 'bodies' of chemicals (us) effecting the environment.
And out of these process is the emergent phenomena that to our minds is perceived to be as evolution and natural selection.
On July 17 2010 02:31 Gnosis wrote: No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work.
Oh cool . Sorry if I sounded pushy I'm just eager to keep discussing.
The way I have always perceived of the idea of natural selection working, and most of this will be familiar to you, is that first you have the 'empty space' of 'chemicals and energy'. Planets, stars, all that jazz forms. On one planet, lets call this planet "Earth" (lol), chemicals are swirling around in its primordial soup forming different permutations over time. Sooner or later a stable self-replicating chemical is found via this permutation process. There is no information in the processes of its environments and none in its random permutations it is merely an inevitable effect of these processes.
Similarly, the self-replicating chemical slowly undergoes more permutations until it forms what we would perceive as a life form. The way in which this formed had nothing to do with information and all to do with the processes of its environment and its chemical nature.
Therefore, in natural selection what we are seeing is not an intelligent system of evolution but a random process of environment effecting chemical, and these 'bodies' of chemicals (us) effecting the environment.
And out of these process is the emergent phenomena that to our minds is perceived to be as evolution and natural selection.
this is basically the current understanding. my only corrections are: (a) the bit about the primordial soup and self-replicating chemicals is abiogenesis, not natural selection. natural selection begins when the first cells are formed by abiogenesis. (b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't
On July 17 2010 02:26 Epsilon8 wrote: Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe.
Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote: Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote: Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
This is the general idea of what I'm getting at.
yeah, if "what caused the laws of physics to be the way that they are?" is ever answerable by science, it will only open new questions. if "spirituality" (complete nonsense imo) helps answer this question for you, you're welcome to it
On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote: Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
This is the general idea of what I'm getting at.
yeah, if "what caused the laws of physics to be the way that they are?" is ever answerable by science, it will only open new questions. if "spirituality" (complete nonsense imo) helps answer this question for you, you're welcome to it
Ideologically, I haven't accepted scientific naturalism... If the answer is true, wherever it comes from, I'll accept it.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote: this is basically the current understanding. my only corrections are: (a) the bit about the primordial soup and self-replicating chemicals is abiogenesis, not natural selection. natural selection begins when the first cells are formed by abiogenesis.
My bit about the primordial soup was not in relation to what natural selection is, it was an attempt to explain how the emergent phenomena of natural selection arose and the underlying processes in the mirco-universe as well as the macro-universe.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote: (b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't
But it is random (Edited: Random meaning that they do not mutate towards a specific goal). There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe.
The emergent phenomena of these random permutations being selected is not a product of intelligence but a product of the processes it interacts with.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Duelist wrote: I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe.
Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
On July 17 2010 02:59 Gnosis wrote: A good time for me to ask a question, then. Is information already present in "empty space," as well as in those "chemicals" and "energy"? (And you didn't sound pushy)
From my point of view yes.
When I was explaining natural selection before I was trying to explain it from the point of view of the previous poster which is held by the majority of modern science and society.
There is some very interesting theories that I have read up on a little in the realm of 'quantum consciousness' area. I am not well versed in these theories and have heard that they are unfounded, although this may not be true.
Its general idea is that your consciousness, as a discrete form, is made up of a 'quantum field' of potentialities. This is explained by the quantum physics ideas of super position and entanglement.
The idea of super position goes like this: If you have sub atomic particle A and it is not being currently observed or effected by anything at all the equations that describe this particle A in quantum physics cannot really say if it is in state SA or SB. Taken a little farther this means that particle A is in state SA and SB at the same time. And so it exists as potentialities and not as anything in particular.
Entanglement is a phenomenon that happens when two sub atomic particles become dependent on each other to define there state. Therefore, if you entangle two sub atomic particles and you effect one the other must necessarily be effected. If you affect an entangled particle the other must be affected even across vast distances. This goes against common knowledge of action at a distance not being possible.
The idea of quantum consciousness is that because super position implies that for a particle to be in any particular state it must be observed. This dependence on reality of consciousness can be taken further to the idea that this is because consciousness is a natural quality of the universe. So your consciousness is composed of a quantum field of entangled super positioned sub atomic particles.
Again this is my general understanding of the idea and I acknowledge that I am not an expert in this area.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote: (b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't
But it is random. There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe.
The emergent phenomena of these random permutations being selected is not a product of intelligence but a product of the processes it interacts with.
random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
"But it is random. There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe."
Not true at all... you can have a deterministic viewpoint of the universe without believing in a higher power. You simply embrace that all events in the universe are determined by prior events, which were determined by events before them and so on in a chain of causes and effects that go back to the beginning of time. It's like if there was a natural catastrophe happening and you'd say "oh that was so random" when in reality it isn't at all. The universe is seen as having a certain order to it, which doesn't mean that it's an entity.
What people claim is random, in fact, just means that it seems unpredictable to us, and not that the events are truly random.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Duelist wrote: I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe.
Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
I disagree. Movement, for instance, is energy. Movement is not how energy works, it's energy itself. It's not energy doing different things, it's energy taking different forms. How it works and what it does is the field of study of many branches of science like thermodynamics.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
So acording to your words, science should be given less credibility, because we don't know if it will be able explain everything even if it explains a whole lot?
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
Science has been able to prove its theories through observation and experimentation, and is able to use its knowledge with effectiveness, proving that many of its concepts do apply to the real world. That's what gives science credibility and what distinguishes it from other fields. You can't ask for science to give explanations to underlying deeper questions anymore than you can ask a baby to ride a bycicle. Give it time and we will see. So far many assumptions appear to be correct, since the whole techonology world you see around yourself are based on them.
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote: random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
I think you have misunderstood me so let me clarify.
1. Genetic variants are random. Edited: (Random meaning that they do not mutate towards a specific goal but mutate on cause and effect)
2. The emergent patterns of 'survival of the fittest' are (Edited: Do have a pattern) but then again we cannot infer any kind of underlying 'intelligence' (Edited: that is nothing 'guiding' it) to this pattern either.
3. My first post that started all this was meant to explain the idea that we have a system, the universe/earth/whatever, that is made of stuff (i.e. chemicals, energy). This stuff interacts in certain ways with each other and eventually creates life as we know it. Now, in the processes of this 'stuff' we could not make any arbitrary distinction between the 'stuff' and some kind of 'environment'. However, now that we can make an arbitrary distinction between environment and stuff we can see emergent phenomena such as patterns of 'survival of the fittest'.
So within this concept the natural selection is not actually intelligent in some way although that does not mean that there is not any patterns to it. The patterns that emerge out of this are a product of processes between the 'stuff' and the 'environment'.
The 'stuff' and 'environment' are not really two. They are only two in the way that they effect each other. And out of this process of cause and effect we see the pattern of 'natural selection'.
Just to clarify to everyone, this is not my take on how things actually are it is only my take on how science has taken it.
The funny thing that I notice is that for someone to claim that things are ultimately random, he would have to be that higher intelligence, since there is no way for us to have access to that kind of knowledge. Logic dictates, on the other hand, that randomness is nothing but an interpretation of unpredictability.
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote: random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
Okay, there has been a lot of misunderstanding. When I am using the word random what I am trying to say is that genes do not evolve towards a specific goal. They just mutate based on cause and effect. In this way they would be 'random' in that they are not guided. Confusing I know. Sorry about that guys.
On July 17 2010 05:10 Hollow wrote: Not true at all... you can have a deterministic viewpoint of the universe without believing in a higher power. You simply embrace that all events in the universe are determined by prior events, which were determined by events before them and so on in a chain of causes and effects that go back to the beginning of time. It's like if there was a natural catastrophe happening and you'd say "oh that was so random" when in reality it isn't at all. The universe is seen as having a certain order to it, which doesn't mean that it's an entity.
What people claim is random, in fact, just means that it seems unpredictable to us, and not that the events are truly random.
See reply to quote above ^.
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote:
I disagree. Movement, for instance, is energy. Movement is not how energy works, it's energy itself. It's not energy doing different things, it's energy taking different forms. How it works and what it does is the field of study of many branches of science like thermodynamics.
But if 'energy' can take different forms then what is energy to begin with? And if energy is movement then how does energy become matter?
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote: So acording to your words, science should be given less credibility, because we don't know if it will be able explain everything even if it explains a whole lot?
I am saying we should get rid of the idea of that science in its current form can accurately describe reality.
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote:
Science has been able to prove its theories through observation and experimentation, and is able to use its knowledge with effectiveness, proving that many of its concepts do apply to the real world. That's what gives science credibility and what distinguishes it from other fields. You can't ask for science to give explanations to underlying deeper questions anymore than you can ask a baby to ride a bycicle. Give it time and we will see. So far many assumptions appear to be correct, since the whole techonology world you see around yourself are based on them.
What science must do is prove its underlying assumptions before it can be said to accurately describe reality. I am not saying science is not useful, nor that it has not helped to make many things possible or describe how many things work.
But just as you can describe how a computer works by taking 8 different buckets and saying an empty bucket is 0 and a full bucket is 1 does not mean that this is the way the computer is. It is merely a description of how the computer works.
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote: random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
Okay, there has been a lot of misunderstanding. When I am using the word random what I am trying to say is that genes do not evolve towards a specific goal. They just mutate based on cause and effect. In this way they would be 'random' in that they are not guided. Confusing I know. Sorry about that guys.
ok, i don't disagree with that. well, i don't agree that random is the appropriate word to use there, but understood anyway.
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote: random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
Okay, there has been a lot of misunderstanding. When I am using the word random what I am trying to say is that genes do not evolve towards a specific goal. They just mutate based on cause and effect. In this way they would be 'random' in that they are not guided. Confusing I know. Sorry about that guys.
ok, i don't disagree with that. well, i don't agree that random is the appropriate word to use there, but understood anyway.
Yes, I know. Sorry about that. I wrote the responses quick without as much thought as I usually do.
Tell me what you mean by "point", and I will tell you if life has any of it. A lot of bad philosophers like to lose their time disserting on the multiple definitions of a given word.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Alcool, drugs, women, serenity.
What are your most important values ?
Humor, intelligence, empathy, bravery.
What is good and what is evil ?
See my first point. You need to first define "good" and "evil" and the answer to your question will become obvious. To me "good" and "evil", are just empty words used to describe what the majority of a given group of people like/dislike for various reasons.
What is Wisdom ?
Wisdom is an empty word used to describe an attitude towards life which seems noble to certain people. To me a wise guy is someone who is never really surprised and who always make the best of any situation.
read the new thread ive posted watch the video wake up people...
Well seems we have some operatives 'thinks of matrix agents' here trying to keep you all a sleep gl in future gonna need it, thread put in general speaking of what really going on in world put into a video format so it easy for people understand removed right away without even one person checking it out. Gl in future what coming most you deserve it dont complain to those who tryed to warn you just like the message in movie V vedetta, you only have yourself to blame.
lack of thinking by people is astonishing, to those who do think continue your doing well rest are doomed let them see that.
On July 18 2010 07:23 Maji wrote: read the new thread ive posted watch the video wake up people...
Well seems we have some operatives 'thinks of matrix agents' here trying to keep you all a sleep gl in future gonna need it, thread put in general speaking of what really going on in world put into a video format so it easy for people understand removed right away without even one person checking it out. Gl in future what coming most you deserve it dont complain to those who tryed to warn you just like the message in movie V vedetta, you only have yourself to blame.
lack of thinking by people is astonishing, to those who do think continue your doing well rest are doomed let them see that.
Maji I sympathize with you because with my conspiratorial background I could have went the same way. Only my distaste in empiricism held me back.
It just so happens that the people who are asleep aren't asleep, they just do not credit the same pieces of information that you do. That is just the way induction works. You have assembled a puzzle with so little parts and may be convinced of the whole picture already, right or wrong. But even if right, it is not people's ignorance that is keeping them from seeing what you see. It is your puzzle.
So when people object to you, and trash on your inferences, don't take it that way. They're not chills, they're not sheep. Keep working on your puzzle, and let the merits of your arguments be recognized by their truth value. If it's really true, then truth shall out.
Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. [...] would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
changed my mind, im too lazy
As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism,
can I ask where this dialogue starts? I checked the last couple pages, but you guys don't seem to be discussing buddhism anymore. I am assuming the conversation evolved. But I don't want to search through the past pages.
Energy is I think a difficult concept which I think is the mathematical quantification of "change". If I want to use a certain type of energy like heat to move a car, the amount of heat I need can be related to the distance I want to move the car, leading to this idea. However, it turns out that in nature, the amount of change a particle or object can excert on other particles or objects, is a fundemental property of the state of the particle or object, called energy. Energy can never dissapear, but there are countless of mechanisms in nature which allow one form of energy to transfer into another.
I think it is safe to say that no one understands deep physics :p. What we call the current "science" are just the theories that most easily explain the current experimental values. Every scientist should know that better theories will come, and that the truth is far out of reach. But that's the beauty of science, always improving.
Just my 2 ct's. Im not that educated in physics but I love the subject .
Maybe I missed the concept you were trying to articulate but that all sounds fairly simple to me. Things have energy, things can give that energy to other things, that energy can be in different forms. This was like year 8 physics, wasn't it?
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. [...] would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism,
can I ask where this dialogue starts? I checked the last couple pages, but you guys don't seem to be discussing buddhism anymore. I am assuming the conversation evolved. But I don't want to search through the past pages.
If you don't mind my asking, changed your mind concerning what? As for my conversation with Epsilon, yes, it has evolved. The first post is here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=136042¤tpage=3#51 (about half way down the page). At least it's the case that we're discussing Buddhism as Epsilon has presented it. I believe we've only gone over very basic things, though they've been new(ish) to me.
Implying there is one, the point of life is probably to maintain and expand itself. Since we tend to see things in a cause and effect-like perspective, (or reason and action) we tend to think that there is a big mystery waiting to be discovered behind our existence. Well we're humans because we evolved to be so, but as for the reason behind the universe, I don't think there is one. If you think about existence in the cause and effect line of thinking then you're bound to eventually discover that every cause must have a cause as well. That being said, this mystery goes along nicely with the age old question of what holds up the earth (the answer being "elephants all the way down"). And that's just plain silly.
What can bring you lasting happiness?
Health wealth and love? Well more like physical well being, power and respect, and satisfying emotional connections. Which all becomes physical and mental well being, which is just well being in general. And that simply simplifies to being well off which translates to happiness.
What are your most important values?
Well not really a philosophical question since it's really just you. So I guess a more generalized version would be: What are the most important values for a human?. Seeing as how humans' main goal is survival (as a race) I would say they would be generosity, mercy, integrity, and strive.
What is good and what is evil?
What makes you feel good = "good", what makes you feel bad = "bad". Not universal constants but are usually pretty distinguished for communities of people as a whole. However, everybody is different so everyone has a slightly different definition than the current standard.
What is Wisdom?
Relatively great amounts of knowledge either one single field, or many.
[B]On July 18 2010 12:15 Hyperbola wrote: What is Wisdom?
Relatively great amounts of knowledge either one single field, or many.
As I haven't actually answered the OP's questions, I'll take a stab at this answer - sorry for using you as an example, Hyperbola. I have to disagree in part. I don't believe wisdom is necessarily reflective of knowledge (that is, depending on the individual, wisdom does not necessarily require a vast amount of knowledge), or that having "...great amounts of knowledge" means that one is wise by default. It only means, by virtue of the fact that one has great amounts of knowledge, that one has... a great amount of knowledge. What one does with that knowledge is, I think, closer to what wisdom is - the application of knowledge. For instance, having knowledge of one's lack of knowledge is, in the case of Socrates, the reason for his being a very wise man (according to a certain Delphic oracle).
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
On July 18 2010 07:23 Maji wrote: read the new thread ive posted watch the video wake up people...
Well seems we have some operatives 'thinks of matrix agents' here trying to keep you all a sleep gl in future gonna need it, thread put in general speaking of what really going on in world put into a video format so it easy for people understand removed right away without even one person checking it out. Gl in future what coming most you deserve it dont complain to those who tryed to warn you just like the message in movie V vedetta, you only have yourself to blame.
lack of thinking by people is astonishing, to those who do think continue your doing well rest are doomed let them see that.
Maji I sympathize with you because with my conspiratorial background I could have went the same way. Only my distaste in empiricism held me back.
It just so happens that the people who are asleep aren't asleep, they just do not credit the same pieces of information that you do. That is just the way induction works. You have assembled a puzzle with so little parts and may be convinced of the whole picture already, right or wrong. But even if right, it is not people's ignorance that is keeping them from seeing what you see. It is your puzzle.
So when people object to you, and trash on your inferences, don't take it that way. They're not chills, they're not sheep. Keep working on your puzzle, and let the merits of your arguments be recognized by their truth value. If it's really true, then truth shall out.
It is there ignorance to not question therefore remain asleep, there response to you, you should realize that you dont have to accept it, they have no call in how they treat the whiskle blowers cause they are only trying to help infact every single person who flames a whiskle blower just doomed themself. You know if you have done your homework the serious times ahead and what has been already happened and real reasons behind it, you also if did further research may realize what this reality really is and the amount of control people are under, people dont even question there 'Likes' what if peoples obsession for Starcraft for instance is a installed program in itself that is a good example of how deep the hypnosis of this world has gone, not only can they infuelence your likes but they can infuelence who you love.
hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Tranquility through virtue (in the ancient sense of the word).
What are your most important values ?
Courage, fidelity, fairness, and honesty, plus the mental ability to make wise moral choices.
What is good and what is evil ?
Things that must be felt by man before they have reality.
What is Wisdom ?
Wisdom is in the realization of the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things. Whoever the designer, he is the generator, and all the partial disclosures of our knowledge prove this. I find it difficult to recognize my own part in anything.
Wisdom's pre-requisite is to distinguish what we accept as true, from what is true for us.
But if 'energy' can take different forms then what is energy to begin with? And if energy is movement then how does energy become matter?
If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work. For the second question i'd suggest asking that to a professor on a university.
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote: So acording to your words, science should be given less credibility, because we don't know if it will be able explain everything even if it explains a whole lot?
I am saying we should get rid of the idea of that science in its current form can accurately describe reality.
What you're talking seems to be related about is the problem of induction, so I'd reccomend you look it up and also read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, can be found online, it's a short story. Basically says how science has been improving, and how facts we now think are wrong, are not totally wrong, but just with some details missing. That as science progresses and gathers and analyzes more data what we know gets more refined and more accurate, so many things people "knew" with the few simple methos and observations a few centuries ago, were not 100% wrong. The more science advances the closer to 100% it gets. It's not a one time job. Anyway, he explains it better than me.
Also, what does science mean by accuracy? Usually: the degree of conformity of predictions to experience. And I think being able to predict future phenomena tells us we know something about reality.
On July 17 2010 05:34 Epsilon8 wrote:What science must do is prove its underlying assumptions before it can be said to accurately describe reality. I am not saying science is not useful, nor that it has not helped to make many things possible or describe how many things work.
But just as you can describe how a computer works by taking 8 different buckets and saying an empty bucket is 0 and a full bucket is 1 does not mean that this is the way the computer is. It is merely a description of how the computer works.
But do you know what are sciences' assumptions? Science starts from the assumption that things are knowable. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply reasoning and there would be no point in trying to describe things scientifically. After that, that things exist and are somehow describable. Again, without these 2 assumptions, you can't reason any knowledge about anything, because 1) they couldn't be known; 2) they wouldn't exist; 3) they coudln't be described.
The best we could do, I think, is to say that scientific descriptions of some phenomena are very accurate and that their accuracy is a strong indication that some things are knowable. So as far as that goes, I'd say science can describe some elements of reality. But there are a lot of ways to describe reality and the physical laws of the universe are not the only way to do it.
Concerning the computer metaphor, isn't knowing how a computer works, part of knowing what it is? How can you know what a computer truly is if you don't know how it works and vice versa?
Btw, i'd like to ask you to define reality, and how does that fit the place you live in.
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. [...] would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
changed my mind, im too lazy
As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism,
can I ask where this dialogue starts? I checked the last couple pages, but you guys don't seem to be discussing buddhism anymore. I am assuming the conversation evolved. But I don't want to search through the past pages.
If you don't mind my asking, changed your mind concerning what? As for my conversation with Epsilon, yes, it has evolved. The first post is here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=136042¤tpage=3#51 (about half way down the page). At least it's the case that we're discussing Buddhism as Epsilon has presented it. I believe we've only gone over very basic things, though they've been new(ish) to me.
I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony...
Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present.
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Sounds good man .
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work. For the second question i'd suggest asking that to a professor on a university.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: What you're talking seems to be related about is the problem of induction, so I'd reccomend you look it up and also read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, can be found online, it's a short story. Basically says how science has been improving, and how facts we now think are wrong, are not totally wrong, but just with some details missing. That as science progresses and gathers and analyzes more data what we know gets more refined and more accurate, so many things people "knew" with the few simple methos and observations a few centuries ago, were not 100% wrong. The more science advances the closer to 100% it gets. It's not a one time job. Anyway, he explains it better than me.
Yes, I totally agree with this. But until it is 100% refined we cannot say it truly understands anything. For example a new theory might evolve that totally debases our old theories and this is accepted as the new 'idea' of how reality is.
I will read this short story soon.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: But do you know what are sciences' assumptions? Science starts from the assumption that things are knowable. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply reasoning and there would be no point in trying to describe things scientifically. After that, that things exist and are somehow describable. Again, without these 2 assumptions, you can't reason any knowledge about anything, because 1) they couldn't be known; 2) they wouldn't exist; 3) they coudln't be described.
The best we could do, I think, is to say that scientific descriptions of some phenomena are very accurate and that their accuracy is a strong indication that some things are knowable. So as far as that goes, I'd say science can describe some elements of reality. But there are a lot of ways to describe reality and the physical laws of the universe are not the only way to do it.
Concerning the computer metaphor, isn't knowing how a computer works, part of knowing what it is? How can you know what a computer truly is if you don't know how it works and vice versa?
Btw, i'd like to ask you to define reality, and how does that fit the place you live in.
Science makes the assumption that : 1. All things are ultimately objective and based off of material things. 2. These objective and material things have 'inherent' laws that govern there interactions. 3. Consciousness arises from physical properties i.e. subjective experience and come from objective phenomena.
My computer metaphor was meant to explain that though we may have description A then can describe object B that does not mean there is any correlation between A and B. For example between Newtonian and relativistic physics. They can both describe the workings of reality very, very accurately but from a philosophical point of view they are completely different and even opposed.
From Newtonian physics we infer that objects and forces are concrete in time and space and have a fixed location. But form relativistic physics we can infer that time and space are not 'concrete' in the way we think they are. That is that two observers can only agree that something happened not at what time or what place it actually happened.
Though both these may describe the physical interactions similarly there philosophical implications are completely different. And it is from these philosophical implications that we derive our world view. These are what I am concerned with. If we argue that Science can accurately describe reality in its current form then we say that its philosophical implications are also correct which if accepted can have huge impacts.
This is just a small example. The difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics is vastly different and philosophical implications are huge. For example: Science has always assumed that objectivity is real and that things are knowable. What quantum physics tells us is that this is not possible and that our belief in an objective world may even be misplaced.
On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote: Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies.
Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims.
This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about?
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
One of the greatest philosophers I have ever known told me this...
"Don't know, don't care, I'm gonna go back to work."
When I would ask him stuff like this.
really? he was one of the greatest philosophers you've ever known, and he didn't care about those questions? exactly what kinds of questions did this great philosopher care about?
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony...
Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present.
You are referring to the early Gnostic sects? We can't really do much dialoging if you aren't willing to provide me with information.
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
no sources, I just know it's almost certainly true. An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles. Want a dozen examples? I am not expert on the bible but I am sure that would be quite easy to muster.
Am I correct in that your counter to my argument is that it can't be proven they aren't his teachings? Because of course that is true - I can't prove anything based on stuff that happened thousand+ years ago and neither can you. However, it can be proven that they contradict his teachings time and time again.
If I wrote a book of buddhism, and it was contradictory to many of buddha's known teachings - how could you debunk it if I claimed it was based on his teachings? You couldn't. We must use our own ability to think critically to come to our own conclusions.
So are you disagreeing with my assertation? Do you want me to provide repeated contradictions?
And FWIW I don't think his teachings were just corrupted in the new testament (though that has a greater level of corruption). I think they were corrupted as soon as other authors started interposing their own lessons and views as being the teachings "of god". If Jesus was really connected to god then it is he that should be giving the lessons only.
And this is all of course only if Jesus actually existed in the first place. Though, I suspect he did.
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
no sources, I just know it's almost certainly true. An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles. Want a dozen examples? I am not expert on the bible but I am sure that would be quite easy to muster.
Am I correct in that your counter to my argument is that it can't be proven they aren't his teachings? Because of course that is true - I can't prove anything based on stuff that happened thousand+ years ago and neither can you. However, it can be proven that they contradict his teachings time and time again.
If I wrote a book of buddhism, and it was contradictory to many of buddha's known teachings - how could you debunk it if I claimed it was based on his teachings? You couldn't. We must use our own ability to think critically to come to our own conclusions.
So are you disagreeing with my assertation? Do you want me to provide repeated contradictions?
And FWIW I don't think his teachings were just corrupted in the new testament (though that has a greater level of corruption). I think they were corrupted as soon as other authors started interposing their own lessons and views as being the teachings of christ(aka the old testament).
My "counter to [your] argument" is this: if you have no sources and simply know these things to be "almost certainly true," then I fail to see any point in pursuing a dialogue with you, as you have no clue what you're talking about (if you want me to be extremely upfront with you). Your beliefs, and ensuing position, isn't rational.
However with that said, I wouldn't mind if you posted one or two examples, just to see what angle you're coming from. If you do, please try to avoid regurgitating information commonly found in the "infidel" community (i.e. Ehrman, "Jesus seminar").
How do I have no clue what I am talking about? Your argument sucks man, it's stupid. I can use my brain, I don't have to be an expert on christianity to see the blatant contradictions.
A quote from jesus
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc.
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Leviticus 19:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Corinthians 2:15
how about jesus on non-violence? I think we all know about Christianity's history of violence.
"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
but the bible doesn't always hold this message
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: How do I have no clue what I am talking about? You're argument sucks man, it's stupid. I can use my brain, I don't have to be an expert on christianity to see the blatant contradictions.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc.
"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
Forgive my criticism but that is pretty poor work of analysis. You just threw some quotes at us...
Thanks for the response Travis, I should have time to address it tonight when I reply to Epsilon. In the mean time, allow me to say that I agree with JP - what you've provided does not appear well thought out. I'm not exactly sure if you understand what you've said about Jesus, but you seem to arguing that his teachings have been corrupted in the sense that they are now moral, that they no longer agree with the basic principles of the Old Testament (whereas his actual teachings would have). I will give you credit for the unique view - that Jesus wasn't a moral teacher, and that his teachings had to be corrupted because they were so barbaric and immoral.
I suspect that this isn't your intention, but it is what you said:
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted... Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
An enlightened man wouldn't write contradictory stories that go completely against his most basic principles (How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
A quote from jesus (Matt. 7:3-5)
how about jesus on non-violence?...
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
On July 19 2010 04:04 RolleMcKnolle wrote: never argue with believers its just gonna ruin ur day
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: If you don't like those definitions i gave, another broader definition is the ability to do work. For the second question i'd suggest asking that to a professor on a university.
But what is it that gives it this ability? There must be something.
Other objects when they react in some way with another, be it heat transfer, a shock, etc. This is related to the 1st law of thermodynamics and Lavoiser's. Every object or system has a defined energy given by its mass times light velocity squared, but being mass constant, changes in the energy - in this case called internal energy - of an object are only transferable with other objects or systems through work or heat.
On July 19 2010 01:35 Epsilon8 wrote:Yes, I totally agree with this. But until it is 100% refined we cannot say it truly understands anything. For example a new theory might evolve that totally debases our old theories and this is accepted as the new 'idea' of how reality is.
I believe we can... we can't say we understand all, but at least parts of the picture. When the earth was thought to be spherical, we can't say those scientists didn't understand anything, same when they thought it was an oblate spheroid. The general idea was there, most information was there, just a few details were missing. It wasn't 100% wrong..., ofc it wasn't 100% right either, but thats where data gathering and analyzing enters, and why science evolves with time.
On July 18 2010 21:34 Duelist wrote: But do you know what are sciences' assumptions? Science starts from the assumption that things are knowable. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply reasoning and there would be no point in trying to describe things scientifically. After that, that things exist and are somehow describable. Again, without these 2 assumptions, you can't reason any knowledge about anything, because 1) they couldn't be known; 2) they wouldn't exist; 3) they coudln't be described.
The best we could do, I think, is to say that scientific descriptions of some phenomena are very accurate and that their accuracy is a strong indication that some things are knowable. So as far as that goes, I'd say science can describe some elements of reality. But there are a lot of ways to describe reality and the physical laws of the universe are not the only way to do it.
Concerning the computer metaphor, isn't knowing how a computer works, part of knowing what it is? How can you know what a computer truly is if you don't know how it works and vice versa?
Btw, i'd like to ask you to define reality, and how does that fit the place you live in.
Science makes the assumption that : 1. All things are ultimately objective and based off of material things. 2. These objective and material things have 'inherent' laws that govern there interactions. 3. Consciousness arises from physical properties i.e. subjective experience and come from objective phenomena.
My computer metaphor was meant to explain that though we may have description A then can describe object B that does not mean there is any correlation between A and B. For example between Newtonian and relativistic physics. They can both describe the workings of reality very, very accurately but from a philosophical point of view they are completely different and even opposed.
From Newtonian physics we infer that objects and forces are concrete in time and space and have a fixed location. But form relativistic physics we can infer that time and space are not 'concrete' in the way we think they are. That is that two observers can only agree that something happened not at what time or what place it actually happened.
Though both these may describe the physical interactions similarly there philosophical implications are completely different. And it is from these philosophical implications that we derive our world view. These are what I am concerned with. If we argue that Science can accurately describe reality in its current form then we say that its philosophical implications are also correct which if accepted can have huge impacts.
This is just a small example. The difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics is vastly different and philosophical implications are huge. For example: Science has always assumed that objectivity is real and that things are knowable. What quantum physics tells us is that this is not possible and that our belief in an objective world may even be misplaced.
Clearly something must be knowable or science would not be capable of making predictions at all. To make a prediction it's necessary to know at least how the phenomenon works. What we can say is that for our reality science seems to have some knowledge about it due to the accurate predictions it makes, and that there could be more realities, to which science has not yet made contact. Correct me if i'm wrong please.
On July 19 2010 04:18 Gnosis wrote: (How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
Because it teaches them in the bible. That is, if I am to assume those quotes are even correct.
Given that Jesus was a holy and peaceful man, it would be obvious what his teachings are anyways. Love and understanding.
Also, if Jesus was real, I don't think he strictly adhered to what was in the old testament. It's pretty ridiculous and also goes against his basic teachings.
Anyways, I am looking forward to how you are going to tell me that those quotes do not contradict each other.
On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote: Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies.
Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims.
This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
Naw man. I'll give you an analogy. If I'm watching someone play poker and I see him misplay his hand pre flop and on the flop, I don't need to see his play on the turn and river to know that he has no goddamn clue what he's doing.
On July 19 2010 04:18 Gnosis wrote: (How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
Because it teaches them in the bible. That is, if I am to assume those quotes are even correct.
Given that Jesus was a holy and peaceful man, it would be obvious what his teachings are anyways. Love and understanding.
Also, if Jesus was real, I don't think he strictly adhered to what was in the old testament. It's pretty ridiculous and also goes against his basic teachings.
Anyways, I am looking forward to how you are going to tell me that those quotes do not contradict each other.
You appear to be presently unteachable, however, I'll now begin...
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: A quote from jesus
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc.
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Leviticus 19:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Corinthians 2:15
Some clarifications (which will in part, address your contradictions).
Corinthians 2:15: the important word in this particular passage is the one rendered "judgeth" (anakrinei) by the KJV. A better rendition of this word is "appraise" or "discern". To substitute using the KJV, we would get "But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man". The NASB has more of a flow to it, "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one." The reason for rendering the word this way is understood if Corinthians 2 in its entirety is kept in mind -- that "spiritual" realities can only be discerned through the "Spirit," and that those who operate in the "Spirit" aren't understood by those without (the "Spirit"). There is no "judgment" is the sense you mean.
Leviticus 19:15: if you read the entire chapter (or even the entire verse), you will understand that this particular passage deals with treating others (i.e. neighbors) justly and righteously (as in not ripping them off during trade). When it says, "in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour," it means that you should treat them fairly.
So there is no contradiction between these verses and Matthew 7:3-5. Further, this does not prove your position that the bible "[tells] us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc."
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: how about jesus on non-violence? I think we all know about Christianity's history of violence.
And Christians today would tell you that certain periods of violence did contradict Jesus' teaching, and shouldn't have happened.
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: "You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
but the bible doesn't always hold this message
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1
To address this, Matthew 5:38-41 isn't a statement of non-violence -- it is a challenge for equality. If one is slapped and then "turns the other cheek," the abuser must either slap with the back of the left hand, which would not have happened because it was considered unclean. Or, the abuser could slap with an open hand, which would have shown equality between the people.
With that aside, I'm not sure where else you believe these verses to contradict.
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote: here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
Uh huh... I tried to make it short, knowing the attention span of most forum goers. You really don't have much of a case with these examples (especially since you've never bothered to look into them).
yeah man, im unteachable. thats how i've learned everything i know currently, by being so unteachable. All you've done is say that my argument isn't well thought out, that you disagree with me, and now that im unteachable.. that's impressively ridiculous considering you haven't even presented anything of substance whatsoever.
On July 19 2010 06:33 travis wrote: yeah man, im unteachable. thats how i've learned everything i know currently, by being so unteachable. All you've done is say that my argument isn't well thought out, that you disagree with me, and now that im unteachable.. that's impressively ridiculous considering you haven't even presented anything of substance whatsoever.
"Unteachable" in the sense I mean it does not refer to merely gaining knowledge, but to the correction of existing knowledge.
On July 19 2010 06:05 zulu_nation8 wrote: What does this religious mysticism stuff have anything to do with philosophy
Indeed. This appears to have run its course. Once you move into the areas of belief it ceases to be a thought exercise and becomes a broken record. Please get back on topic or take it to pms.
On July 19 2010 06:05 zulu_nation8 wrote: What does this religious mysticism stuff have anything to do with philosophy
Indeed. This appears to have run its course. Once you move into the areas of belief it ceases to be a thought exercise and becomes a broken record. Please get back on topic or take it to pms.
fine, i'll stop. but i've never been a fan of this view. it's ok for discussions to evolve.
gnosis: i'll read your reply and form my opinion of it. I would have gladly replied to it and continued this discussion, though.
We can continue in PM's if you wish, I'm perfectly willing to. And I'll likewise state my disagreement with Kwark - that is a very superficial treatment of "belief". Well, that and philosophy is much, much more than "thought exercise" and includes religious mysticism...
It's not your discussion I object to so much as the location of it. If you look at the op it says "It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.". By all means feel free to create a mysticism topic for this.
I know discussions evolve but I suspect I'm not alone in having a keen interest in philosophy while being turned off by unsubstantiated belief systems. So while I don't want you to stop talking if you're having fun I'd rather it stuck to the topic. Hopefully that seems fair.
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote: critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote: I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus).
On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote: Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)?
Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead.
Adonai bless
Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources?
On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote: hju, these threads always suck^^ I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony...
Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present.
You are referring to the early Gnostic sects? We can't really do much dialoging if you aren't willing to provide me with information.
You will have trouble finding information on it brother specially techno-spirituality you may have heard of the power of manifestation from your gnostic research, those who practice techno-spirituality will achieve it, some in illuminati possess such a ability already in humans perception it would be called magic as being able to manifest a thought created object out of thin air would indeed seem magical.
As you are aware such discipline is not easily obtained and most humans couldnt do it due to the noise they listen to in this corrupt world. You may have more luck looking for palochristanity that too would be of great assistance and eventually lead to techno-spirituality.
If a person believes that his or her life has become so vile and disgusting or useless or even a drain to the whole of humanity, then maybe that person might consider suicide as a way to relieve perceived pain. I
The vast vast vast majority of suicides are not committed because the person is worthless (think tubgirl or something), but because the person feels worthless, specifically, he feels that life is no longer worth living. It has nothing to do with "Oh my life is worthless I don't contribute to society", its simply "I can't take living anymore".
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote: critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote: critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example in relation to the definition provided (it appears I got Hume'd). However, I see no reason to believe that wisdom can't be pursued through mystical practices, only that it could not be relayed.
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote: critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example as I can't think of anyone to cite outside of personal contacts. Friends who practice mysticism in the sense that they decided that there was such a thing as a divine being through traditional means, but then attempt to connect with it through meditation, feeling, etc.
1. Its an easy accessable source of knowledge. So why not take a definition from there? I could define it wih my own words or with those of the pope or Napoleon, it would still be a definition and as long as someone thinks it fits its fine. 2. and wait? didnt u want to tell us that mysticism is rational? so something like not-meditation or not-feeling?
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote: critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example as I can't think of anyone to cite outside of personal contacts. Friends who practice mysticism in the sense that they decided that there was such a thing as a divine being through traditional means, but then attempt to connect with it through meditation, feeling, etc.
1. Its an easy accessable source of knowledge. So why not take a definition from there? I could define it wih my own words or with those of the pope or Napoleon, it would still be a definition and as long as someone thinks it fits its fine. 2. and wait? didnt u want to tell us that mysticism is rational? so something like not-meditation or not-feeling?
1. Wikipedia is notorious for being extremely inadequate when it comes to philosophy. I'll use William of Ockham as an example: see blog "Beyond Necessity".
2. I was going to say that some forms of mysticism incorporate practices which would be viewed as rational (such as coming to the belief in a deity through rational means, but pursing this deity through mystical means), but as I couldn't find "famous" examples, I conceded the point. In any case, I focused on the wrong thing. Instead I highlighted that in the "pursuit of wisdom," I see no reason why mysticism should be discounted. But perhaps that is conflating "philosophy" with "pursuit of wisdom".
I would have to agree with Gnosis by the fact that "philo" means love and "sophy" means wisdom. Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom and the pursuit of that wisdom.
In more modern terms we can define philosophy as correct reasoning built on valid assumptions that build towards a logical conclusion. Now this does not mean that all philosophies are built on valid assumptions or have logical arguments. We can all see this in various different philosophers and philosophical systems. Indeed, philosophy is the argument and debate of individuals trying to sort through these different understandings and getting rid of the incorrect thought systems.
Taken in this definition religion and mysticism are types of philosophy. It makes arguments and conclusions in order to support its philosophical view. Whether or not the arguments are sound does not contradict what philosophy is.
So what I would say is that bringing religion and mysticism into this discussion is not wrong by the definition of what philosophy is. However, it is wrong if you are not approaching your discussion from a philosophical point of view. Therefore, when presenting any kind of thought paradigm to this thread one should build from valid assumptions to arguments and conclusions. In this way we will facilitate real philosophical discussion rather than just a bunch of individuals stating their beliefs without giving just cause for those beliefs.
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote: Yes, I see where you are going now. I agree with you now. Except on one minor point. And is probably because I haven't been explaining myself very well. Emptiness does not constitute itself as reality. What does constitute itself as reality is the underlying cause of why emptiness exists. This cause can be deduced by examining the implications of emptiness.
Much of this we both have already discussed :
Emptiness means that perceived phenomena when examined cannot be established as having any inherent existence. This is because phenomena are defined by a relative point to everything else. From this point we understand that when we perceive phenomena they are like illusions because what we perceive is not actually in any definite way what we perceive it to be. From this point we reason that if we cannot define any kind of phenomena without a reference point then said phenomena and reference point do not exist outside of each other and therefore must not be separate. We then reason that everything we perceive or that can possibly exist cannot be separate from everything else because that would mean that we would not be able to define it. At this point we realize that it is wholeness that is the cause of emptiness. If everything were not whole and of one thing then necessarily emptiness could not exist.
This concept of wholeness has parallels in many other persuading arguments as well such as modern science.
I believe we both get what the other is saying, it's just that we're using language that is going past the other (I hope, or perhaps it's just me). The only thing I would disagree with here is the notion that a thing which exists dependently (that is, empty) cannot be an actual, distinct being (in terms of ontology), such as a "Platonic form" (such a thing need not inherently exist).
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote: I do not think I can make any further argument on the 'step of faith' aspect of this. However, I would like to say that, and you may already know this, in Buddhism we do have an essential nature and that nature is what I described in the above paragraph. Of one being and existence upon which phenomena in which emptiness can be seen arise.
I would like to hear your reasoning for things of Platonic nature to interact and effect each other. I am well versed in Buddhism where they discredit this idea and so have not really thought about the opposite.
In my mind the general idea of emptiness and what it implies is so incontrovertible that I no longer believe that it is a step of faith. However, I do realize that this does not mean that I am right.
I am very interested in how you perceive of things to exist.
This is the reason my reply took so long, and honestly, I didn't get all that far looking into this (so you may need to explain Buddhist refutations, to me). I take Platonic forms only so far, as only applying to people, animal, plants... Things which are naturally occurring, rather than manufactured (such that Buddhist refutations exampling chariots, cars, cups, etc. become moot, missing the point). I really don't have a complex argument for it other than what I explained earlier. Perhaps you could highlight for me how Buddhists refute Plato, and I may be able to elaborate more.
I do not believe perception influences or defines reality as it is, even if perception has some part to play in the experiences of an individual in relation to reality. I believe things are all made of the same basic materials, but I do not believe that this necessarily means that everyone is part of a whole, such that 'this' or 'that' is an illusion of our perception. I would view myself as a contingent being (by virtue of my parents), so I wouldn't describe myself as "inherently existing". But I would say that I exist, have an essential nature, etc. I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it for your reply.
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote: No you are not being pushy at all. The dialogue has also been very enjoyable for me. I very rarely get to talk to anyone about philosophy and TL was the last place I expected it from. But you know - TL can solve anything.
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote: Other objects when they react in some way with another, be it heat transfer, a shock, etc. This is related to the 1st law of thermodynamics and Lavoiser's. Every object or system has a defined energy given by its mass times light velocity squared, but being mass constant, changes in the energy - in this case called internal energy - of an object are only transferable with other objects or systems through work or heat.
I can see we are going around in circles here. Just to clarify: the argument that started this expressed the idea that since you cannot define 'what' energy is in and of itself you cannot actually define what reality is. This leads to the question of 'why'.
My argument was based on the fact that because energy is all there is you cannot define it relative to anything else. I.E. in the absence of that which is tall you cannot define that which is short.
You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with.
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote: I believe we can... we can't say we understand all, but at least parts of the picture. When the earth was thought to be spherical, we can't say those scientists didn't understand anything, same when they thought it was an oblate spheroid. The general idea was there, most information was there, just a few details were missing. It wasn't 100% wrong..., ofc it wasn't 100% right either, but thats where data gathering and analyzing enters, and why science evolves with time.
Please re-read my previous post and seek to understand what I am trying to get across. The problem is not that science is half describing the functions of reality so by your reasoning this means it is not entirely true, it is that the theories that are generally accepted lead to understandings of the way the universe is - how reality is. This affects society and individual beliefs tremendously. Because if science is telling us how reality is that creates our beliefs about ourselves and ultimately is the cause of the way we act.
Now since it has been shown that many different accepted theories throughout the ages have lead to different philosophical beliefs about the world we can see that applying science to our understanding of how reality is, is not correct. Because in 10 years the theory might be debased and everything that we thought before and hence based our beliefs on was incorrect.
We must begin to understand that science does not just affect our understanding of the physical world it also affects the understand of our selves. Because we are a extension of the 'physical' world.
In this way science is a philosophy. It is directly related to our understanding of truth and reality. And just like with all other philosophies it makes certain assumptions that are unfounded. Assumptions I have stated before.
Therefore, we must begin to see science as a philosophy so that we do not mistakenly put our beliefs into it.
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote: Clearly something must be knowable or science would not be capable of making predictions at all. To make a prediction it's necessary to know at least how the phenomenon works. What we can say is that for our reality science seems to have some knowledge about it due to the accurate predictions it makes, and that there could be more realities, to which science has not yet made contact. Correct me if i'm wrong please.
Let me clarify: my argument is not based on whether or not something is knowable but whether or not that know-ability is what has been defined by science. That is what science has assumed.
My concern is not in whether or not science is a good approach to understanding truth rather it is concern with the assumptions that science has made and the philosophical implications of these assumptions. All of which have not been proven to be true.
Clearly, this discussion will go on for a long time before we can get to any kind of agreement. If you would like more sources, much more reliable then am I, to garner knowledge on what I am talking about I suggest the books:
Embracing Mind by Allan B. Wallace <- I recommend this one above the rest. The other references I have provided contain parts of what I am trying to convey. This contains the whole of it.
Furthermore, anything to do with the philosophical arguments of Buddhism or quantum physics and its philosophical implications such as The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics.
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about?
It goes back to this post I made which was based on some previous discussions :
On July 17 2010 02:26 Epsilon8 wrote:
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
All subsequent posts between Duelist and I were towards this first post.
Science may ask why every once in a while, but that is not its primary concern. Science is concerned mainly with describing physical phenomena, and seeing if any possible connections between such phenomena can be utilized efficiently for humans.
Why is a question that is fundamentally human in nature; every human will want to know why to some extent, including scientists.
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about?
It goes back to this post I made which was based on some previous discussions :
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
All subsequent posts between Duelist and I were towards this first post.
I'm fairly confident science is concerned with identifying causes. I'm also confident physics can establish the existence of energy. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote: Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies.
Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims.
This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
Blyadischa I would also recommend you reading some of Jiddu Krishnamurti`s teachings, especially about authorities and ideologies. Though I understand the seductive glamour of knowing great philosophers and their teachings, I think Epsilon is right.
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity.
On July 20 2010 01:58 UFO wrote: On to discussion :
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity.
(Note to Epsilon: I don't know if you saw, but I replied to your post.)
UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition. We run into another problem. You said that "reality can be anything" which means that it might not be "indefineable and uncompareable" <sic>. So then, how can you sure of anything you're saying about reality? Rather, what I think you mean to express is that even if there is an objective, absolute reality, we cannot know it (a statement much in line with the ridiculous PoMo crowd - "postmodernist"). But even this statement must assume knowledge of reality as it actually is. There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is, hence it will refute any claims made that suggest reality as unknowable.
What this means is that you and I have (as a concept) grasped reality, comparing it in our minds with things which are not everything. I compare in my mind a reality which is everything, to a reality which is nothing (and it's a very hard thing, this nothing).
So you've established that either we take you on faith, as per your self-contradictions, or we ignore you, because you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.
On July 20 2010 01:58 UFO wrote: On to discussion :
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity.
(Note to Epsilon: I don't know if you saw, but I replied to your post.)
UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition. We run into another problem. You said that "reality can be anything" which means that it might not be "indefineable and uncompareable" <sic>. So then, how can you sure of anything you're saying about reality? Rather, what I think you mean to express is that even if there is an objective, absolute reality, we cannot know it (a statement much in line with the ridiculous PoMo crowd - "postmodernist"). But even this statement must assume knowledge of reality as it actually is. There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is, hence it will refute any claims made that suggest reality as unknowable.
What this means is that you and I have (as a concept) grasped reality, comparing it in our minds with things which are not everything. I compare in my mind a reality which is everything, to a reality which is nothing (and it's a very hard thing, this nothing).
So you've established that either we take you on faith, as per your self-contradictions, or we ignore you, because you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.
Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is
There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition
Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
Here is what you said:
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite. How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it.
The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality.
It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable. Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it. edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote: I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
The pursuit of emotion is what dictates all our decisions. not logic. Values, Good and evil. Wisdom are all Things that are conveniently made up to made people work together in a society. The purpose of life is no secret, it's evident all around you. From every man made object to the Invisible gratification that a man obtains when he accomplishes something. We do things because we are slaves to our own emotion. Without it. there would be no purpose. If you ask the purpose behind that then i converge you with another riddle. When you see an animal or any other living thing... is there any difference between you and them? and i ask you to take this logic in mind. Does intelligence hold any weight in the universe to make us supreme to anything? its just an invisible stigma we use to dictate that its ok for how we shape things around us with little care for life besides our own. We know that we are here and i tell you the reason is to divulge into our own needs..we do it every day; to consume. we are parasites till life ceases to exist on this planet for what ever reason.
On July 20 2010 01:11 GaMeOfFeAr wrote: To Epsilon8:
Science may ask why every once in a while, but that is not its primary concern. Science is concerned mainly with describing physical phenomena, and seeing if any possible connections between such phenomena can be utilized efficiently for humans.
Why is a question that is fundamentally human in nature; every human will want to know why to some extent, including scientists.
My whole point is that because Science is a thought system which is based on ideas of how reality is it does answer these 'why' questions. At least in the view of the common public.
The most dominant theory of science at the time will have far reaching effects on the society of the time because it implies its own philosophical implications. If we take these to be true implications then we run the risk of allowing ourselves to believe in something which may not actually be real.
I have shown how through the occurrence of different dominant theories in science through out history, most of which are completely contradictory in terms of there philosophical implications, we as a society have held completely different models of the universe and of 'truth'.
These ideas of 'truth' have far reaching effects on society and who we believe ourselves to be as a society and individuals.
What I am saying is that we should be careful how much we believe science expresses 'truth' since it has been shown that in terms of philosophical implications it has not.
On July 20 2010 01:23 zulu_nation8 wrote: I'm fairly confident science is concerned with identifying causes. I'm also confident physics can establish the existence of energy. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Note to Gnosis: I did see it. I have been stalling for a while because I want to put forth my best and so have been letting the question run through my mind. I will answer your tonight, right after this post actually.
On July 19 2010 09:52 Gnosis wrote: I believe we both get what the other is saying, it's just that we're using language that is going past the other (I hope, or perhaps it's just me). The only thing I would disagree with here is the notion that a thing which exists dependently (that is, empty) cannot be an actual, distinct being (in terms of ontology), such as a "Platonic form" (such a thing need not inherently exist).
Yeah, I believe I do get what your saying. Although, I'm not sure if you are. If you are getting me straight I apologize in advance for this reply. I'm just getting confused a little at your last disagreement here because I believe I have shown you before that I agree with you. The fact that you still have this disagreement is probably because my explaining badly.
I feel as if I have not given the best explanation of what the basis for reality which causes 'emptiness'. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have come to the conclusion that I believe that some kind of 'Platonic form' exists ontologically underneath 'emptiness'. And I believe its because I have used the word 'being' to describe this no-separation aspect of reality.
Being was the wrong word to describe this 'wholeness'. A more accurate description is that because it is whole you cannot say that it is anything. From a Buddhist point of view the ultimate nature of reality is that it does not exist and it does not not exist. Using these phrases Buddhim tries to convey the idea that ultimate reality is ultimately beyond distinction and cannot be described in anything dualistically. This is because it is one. And being one it is not big and it is not small. It is not good and it is not not good. It is not empty and it is not not empty.
I guess by 'being' I meant to convey the idea that even though it is beyond all distinctions it is in a way a 'being'. That is it is of one thing and is aware.
We come to the conclusion of awareness because awareness is not inherently based on any 'I', which I will talk about in the next section, and since awareness is observed as 'existing' in experience, awareness is not separate from emptiness and as such is experienced in the experience of 'ultimate reality'.
You may say that I have made a contradiction in that I have stated this 'theory' of ultimate reality as a definition and as such I have put forth some kind of basis for how reality is so at least this must be distinguishable. But I would proffer the classic Buddhist metaphor about how reality actually exists :
Picture these ideas of the notion reality as a finger and the finger is pointing at the moon. The moon is absolute truth. Now when I explain these definitions that Buddhism has created for 'defining' reality I also offer the fact that these 'definitions' are not actually reality. They are merely the finger pointing at the moon and not the moon itself. From a Buddhist point of view conceptualizations of reality will never accurately describe reality because it is not reality. In every Buddhist teach there is this idea - the idea that what you are being taught is only a finger to point the way, words that try to explain that which is wordless.
On July 19 2010 09:52 Gnosis wrote: This is the reason my reply took so long, and honestly, I didn't get all that far looking into this (so you may need to explain Buddhist refutations, to me). I take Platonic forms only so far, as only applying to people, animal, plants... Things which are naturally occurring, rather than manufactured (such that Buddhist refutations exampling chariots, cars, cups, etc. become moot, missing the point). I really don't have a complex argument for it other than what I explained earlier. Perhaps you could highlight for me how Buddhists refute Plato, and I may be able to elaborate more.
I do not believe perception influences or defines reality as it is, even if perception has some part to play in the experiences of an individual in relation to reality. I believe things are all made of the same basic materials, but I do not believe that this necessarily means that everyone is part of a whole, such that 'this' or 'that' is an illusion of our perception. I would view myself as a contingent being (by virtue of my parents), so I wouldn't describe myself as "inherently existing". But I would say that I exist, have an essential nature, etc. I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it for your reply.
Okay I'll try to explain this as best I can. At the end I'll give you some references to Buddhist materials which cover the subject if you would like to check those out as well. I do not think I will ever be able to explain certain concepts to you to the point where you understand them 100%. This is because I am not the greatest explainer and I rarely get to explain these concepts in their entirety so I am not well versed in communicating it accurately to another. So I apologize where I have mislead you in terms of what Buddhism is or have explained something incorrectly.
First off we can establish that something which is inherently existent cannot be dependent on anything else, they are mutually exclusive, one or the other. We can also establish through observation that the physical world is impermanent and so to are our thoughts of ourselves, ideas, and beliefs.
We can go on to say that because inherently existent things and non-inherently existent things are mutually exclusive, one cannot affect another. If an inherently existent thing could affect a non-inherently existent thing or vice versa the inherently existent thing cannot be inherent anymore because it has affected something else.
Buddhist approach the establishment of human beings being non-inherent by using two basic arguments.
If who we are as beings is inherent then this must mean that either : 1. The 'I' that is inherent is one with the body and mind. 2. The 'I' that is inherent is separate from the body and mind (as in soul).
Arguments for the refutation of option 1:
1. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then mind and body would not be able to be created or destroyed. 2. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then we could not think 'my' arm or 'my' leg. This is because the 'I' is one with these and cannot distinguish itself from them. 3. If the 'I' was one with mind and body we would not be able to experience the effects of actions or others actions because this would imply change to that which is inherently existent. (The next two are in my opinion not that sound) 4. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then mind and body would have to be one thing. 5. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then there would have to be two 'I's
Arguments for the refutation of option 2:
1. If the 'I' was separate from the mind and body then the separate 'I' would not be able to affect the mind and body because by virtue of affecting it it has changed. 2. If the 'I' was separate from the mind and body then we would be able to find the 'I' after clearing away all mental and physical characteristics.
These are the basic refutations of an 'inherent I'. I will go on to say that the 'I' as an entity, the way you perceive it in your mind, is established based on thoughts of the self. Ideas of who you are, where you grew up, things you like, dislike, beliefs you hold, etc. In this way your idea of who you are, even your thought that there is an 'I' to begin with, is based on dependencies of environment, experience, body, and mind.
For example: There have been studies of individuals who have been observed to lose there abilities of proprioception. Proprioception is the ability to distinguish your body from the rest of the world. These people begin to lose there sense of the 'I'.
All this leads to the conclusion that the idea of an 'I' is just that, an idea. The idea of a separate self of which we build an ego entity based on beliefs and experience is empty because thinking is based on empty things.
One more thing: Buddhism does not equate awareness with the sense of an 'I'. Rather, your sense of an 'I' comes from attachment to conceptualizations about 'who you are'. Awareness stands in the back of all of this, simply aware, no further complications.
Some things to take a look at if you haven't already :
How to See Yourself As You Really Are - The Dalai Lama Embracing Mind - Allan B Wallace (I recommend this not specifically for Buddhism, but for making a case for Buddhism. Its awesome)
If you want more links to books I'll be happy to provide.
Thanks for the book recommendations (as well as site) Epsilon, unfortunately starting tomorrow my free time greatly diminishes. I'll still take a look into this, so I'll get back to you some time in the coming weeks, probably through PM (or this thread, if it's not closed). I'll leave your most recent reply until then, as I can't really do it justice with my current understanding of Buddhism.
On July 20 2010 04:14 Yurebis wrote: It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable. Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it. edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it
I agree with you It was his inclusion of the word "infinity" that was causing problems.
On July 20 2010 11:07 Gnosis wrote: Thanks for the book recommendations (as well as site) Epsilon, unfortunately starting tomorrow my free time greatly diminishes. I'll still take a look into this, so I'll get back to you some time in the coming weeks, probably through PM (or this thread, if it's not closed). I'll leave your most recent reply until then, as I can't really do it justice with my current understanding of Buddhism.
On July 20 2010 04:14 Yurebis wrote: It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable. Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it. edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it
I agree with you It was his inclusion of the word "infinity" that was causing problems.
Aww man. Alright, well I'll look forward to hearing from you. Its been great talking.
On July 20 2010 08:03 Epsilon8 wrote: I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Yes it can. It is defined as energy. This is what nouns are for. Energy can also be described in terms of its traits and effects. You could equally say that science cannot describe a rock.
On July 20 2010 08:03 Epsilon8 wrote: I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Yes it can. It is defined as energy. This is what nouns are for. Energy can also be described in terms of its traits and effects. You could equally say that science cannot describe a rock.
But when we get down to the 'base' we cannot go any further to define it. A rock is made of energy so I don't believe this is a correct analogy.
To define something you need to define it by its parts, what its made of. For example a rock is made of chemicals.
Energy cannot be defined in terms of its parts, that is, what it is. Because it is the base of everything. Because we cannot say energy is such and such because it is what it is we end up with the definition energy is energy. Which doesn't really explain anything.
So then we are still left with the question what is it?
On July 20 2010 12:12 Maji wrote: Heres a Question for you all how was the universe created. I know the answer but I want to see what rest you are thinkin.
Technically, saying that you know how the universe was created is a lie. You can't actually have 'knowledge' of how the universe was created if you accept the common philosophical definition of knowledge, because it is possible to conceive a case in which whatever explanation you may think you have is false, and it is likewise impossible to prove such a case to be false, based only on human perceptions. For example, I could say that the universe exists in a constant looping state, and has always existed that way or I could say that existence was created by some outside force that does not follow the rational laws of our universe. Since no one has ever been able to give a completely conclusive disproof of either of these statements, claiming you know that one (or some other conflicting one) is correct is false.
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
Reality does not need to be finite for it to have boundaries. Reality is the set of all non-contradictions. If something doesn't exist, then it's not part of reality, because its existance would contradict its non-existance. Anything that does exist is a part of reality. The sum of those things that do exist make up reality.
For example, the horizontal axis of a cartesian plane is infinite in length, but very easily defined as y=0.
You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with.
First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence. Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions.
People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
On July 20 2010 12:12 Maji wrote: Heres a Question for you all how was the universe created. I know the answer but I want to see what rest you are thinkin.
Technically, saying that you know how the universe was created is a lie. You can't actually have 'knowledge' of how the universe was created if you accept the common philosophical definition of knowledge, because it is possible to conceive a case in which whatever explanation you may think you have is false, and it is likewise impossible to prove such a case to be false, based only on human perceptions. For example, I could say that the universe exists in a constant looping state, and has always existed that way or I could say that existence was created by some outside force that does not follow the rational laws of our universe. Since no one has ever been able to give a completely conclusive disproof of either of these statements, claiming you know that one (or some other conflicting one) is correct is false.
Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
Unless knowledge already exsists and your not really learning anything but more remembering something you already know, This statement is entirely true as follows; All knowledge is waves in which can be attuned into once the proper channels are met.
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
Reality does not need to be finite for it to have boundaries. Reality is the set of all non-contradictions. If something doesn't exist, then it's not part of reality, because its existance would contradict its non-existance. Anything that does exist is a part of reality. The sum of those things that do exist make up reality.
For example, the horizontal axis of a cartesian plane is infinite in length, but very easily defined as y=0.
You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with.
First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence. Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions.
People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
If you think that grammar is intelligence then your IQ isnt very high. when people over complicate they do so to make themself seem smarter than they are this is a common egocentric approach in this reality, hence a true wise person speaks in means in which are simple and explain alot one the best tools for this is metaphors/analogys because it is much easier for people to understand things by association than to understand it by it complex value.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite. How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it.
The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality.
"The only thing we know about reality is..." - I guess such statement would better explain what I meant and I agree , I described reality with my words but this is like saying " I described X as undescribeable"
The parts of reality are defineable because they are not infinite nor are they multidimensional like the whole of reality. Parts of reality are perceived by the mind - which separates things into boxes of knowledge.
You can get better understanding of parts of reality but again , this is not understanding of the whole of reality. You can get understanding of almost infinite number of parts of reality but this is not understanding of the whole reality. Understanding the reality as the whole =/= understanding parts of reality.
I described reality by saying that it is infinite and multidimensional but this is not a definition of the whole of reality.
Definitions - by their nature - can only describe parts of reality and not the wholeness of reality. Wholeness of reality can`t be described, yet at the same time I just described it by saying it can`t be... but you see - I describe x by saying it can`t be described - thats self-contradictory but that because of how words work, the meaning remains understandable despite this contradiction.
Haven't been following the whole thread, but the current discussion seems to be about the idea of reality.
There are two simple options that you just have to decide for yourself:
(Scientific) Realism: What we see, what we understand, represents reality. Maybe not 100% completely accurate, but it's close, and as our understanding of the universe gets better, it will get closer to 100%.
Empiricism: What we see, what we perceive, is possibly completely different from what reality actually is. For example, we might all be in a Matrix-like computer simulation. However, we use our current models of the universe as working models.
Regardless of which you believe, your behavior in real life probably won't change very much. Both are accepting our perceptions as valid data for making decisions.
There are some pretty good arguments on both sides, although personally empiricism is my favorite. Possibly because it's safer.
On July 20 2010 13:03 FreezerJumps wrote: First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence. Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions.
People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
Wow dude. You jump into this thread without any previous posts or at least not enough for me to remember you and you start insulting me?
If this is your position than I don't think you have read all my posts that relate to this topic and if you have you have not really understood what I am trying to say.
It's not hard. It's not complicated. I'm not using fancy grammar to seem like my 'IQ' is higher than yours. I'm using English like everyone else is here and if you have not read enough in order to be comfortable with my level of grammar then perhaps you are in the wrong place.
Let me make it clear: I understand what you are trying to say about what I am saying. But no I do not believe that. And that is what debate is for.
If you really do understand what I am saying than please relate it back to me and make me understand why I am wrong instead of insulting me. Insulting people to replace a logical argument is not a valid argument.
Look at UFO's posts. His general idea is the same one I am trying to explain. Maybe that will help you to understand.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
Here is what you said:
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite. How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it.
The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote: Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality.
"The only thing we know about reality is..." - I guess such statement would better explain what I meant and I agree , I described reality with my words but this is like saying " I described X as undescribeable"
The parts of reality are defineable because they are not infinite nor are they multidimensional like the whole of reality. Parts of reality are perceived by the mind - which separates things into boxes of knowledge.
You can get better understanding of parts of reality but again , this is not understanding of the whole of reality. You can get understanding of almost infinite number of parts of reality but this is not understanding of the whole reality. Understanding the reality as the whole =/= understanding parts of reality.
I described reality by saying that it is infinite and multidimensional but this is not a definition of the whole of reality.
Definitions - by their nature - can only describe parts of reality and not the wholeness of reality. Wholeness of reality can`t be described, yet at the same time I just described it by saying it can`t be... but you see - I describe x by saying it can`t be described - thats self-contradictory but that because of how words work, the meaning remains understandable despite this contradiction.
I've been trying to put that into words for a while, very nice job man, you described this pretty well imo. Could you clarifiy the 'how the world works' part for me tho? This would be a fun paper. (i cite of course <3)
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Science is a tool to observe the cause & effect of such phenomena, by the very act of observing the nature of the thing we call energy, the more we understand it the more we define it. By the very doing of science we are defining, the question here is not whether science is defining, it is whether it can ever define fully.
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite. How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
You are making an assumption about the nature of reality without coherent evidence. Here you have created an imaginary concept of whose primary aim is to become undefinable, whether or not this has any relevance to reality has been lost along the way. The definition of reality, which has to exist (for reasons i will come to shortly) will be in the form of the mathematic principles that govern reality. Now why a definition of reality must exist, the possible beggining, middles and conclusions of this thing called reality are contained themselves within the limits of reality, If you take the view that reality is limited, then this definition stems from reality in that it may take the whole of reality or a subset of part of it to paint the picture of how reality works, If reality is indeed itself limitless, then it defines itself as all possible outcomes are self contained by the definition that creates & governs reality (reality itself) the fact that a reasonable and practical understanding of this is unattainable by humanity is irrelevant.
Imagine the universe as a computer, all that contained within the universe is, by definition, a product of this 'computer' thus, all possibilities in this 'reality' must be attainable from either the full power of this computer or a subset of that power. If you take the veiwpoint that reality itself is limitless you are also assuming the processing power to create this reality is equally limitless.
Look up the definitions of "definition" and "define."
Next, look up the definitions of "energy" and "reality."
Now you know what energy and reality are.
To refute these definitions is to be intentionally ignorant. If you choose to do so, then you are, as I described above, purposely overcomplicating subjects to try to sound smarter.
If you get bored of this argument, you may want to try debating what cats are next.
The view of a certain definition from a lexicographers point of view is misguided. I think we should rather follow Wittgenstein:
“The meaning of a word is what is explained by the explanation of the meaning.” i.e., if you want to understand the use of the word “meaning”, look for what are called “explanations of meaning”. (PI 560)
Explanations of meaning are rather a question of showing the rules of use, not a definition written anywhere.
What if humanity has the potentional to manifest by willpower alone anything that they require would this not then remove the need for the system of life humanity is conditioned to follow, now ask yourself why would such knowledge be kept form humanity if all solution lay in such realisations...
Work and love Some people argue that life is pointless because all you do is work until you die. I find work enjoyable, and no matter what you do, you should feel good about yourself because you're helping society. Always love your friends and family. Everyone needs some love!
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote: Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote: Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
Everything you know now before you where born you knew it is simply that once the correct choice is made the correct amount of effort the knowledge is given, We have said before all knowledge is waves this is correct your brain has a deep connection to the universe you occupy you dont realize it yet as a species.
Why does there have to be a point? Life can just be.(Just like some religions may say God just is)
2)What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Knowing I can support my family and even more if I could include my friends.
3)What are your most important values ?
1) Being humble, I really dislike it when someone looks down on someone because of where they work or what they drive. 2) Trust, Knowing you have someone that you can speak to about anything can help keep your mind at ease.
4)What is good and what is evil ?
Funny because depending from where you look at it good and evil can be debatable from both sides. Is it evil for another animal to kill another animal to live? Is it evil for that same animal to kill another animal to keep their family alive?
So I tie it back in to real world... Is it wrong for the drug dealer to sell to keep his family full? Is he evil? Very hard there is no black and white line in some cases
5)What is Wisdom ?
Wisdom is the ability to learn from others mistakes.
nothing can bring anyone such a thing, save except for drugs or something
What are your most important values ?
beauty and revenge, revenge is beautiful
What is good and what is evil ?
they are words made up to make people feel better about their own thoughts/actions. When something suits what they feel like, it is called "good", when something goes against what they want, it is "evil".
What is Wisdom ?
a word made up by sophists (usually attributing widsom to themselves or their 'master' etc) to make it seem like they have something useful to say when they really don't.
Some of these questions have non-trivial answers, actually.
In particular, there are 3 competing answers for the question "What is good and what is evil?"
First, we have the deontologists: good is defined as fulfilling one's duty. Evil is defined as "not good." Duty is an innate aspect of your existence, and cannot change. Therefore, good and evil are absolute, regardless of circumstances.
Then, we have the naturalists: good comes from our physical existence and environment. There are many flavors of naturalism, but they're all based on the same concept: good comes from some physical thing, such as pleasure or love. Thus, good and evil can change as circumstances change.
The newest one is that the terms "good" and "evil" have no innate meaning, and are merely labels that we place on things that we choose. This idea covers both naturalism and deontology, if you look at it right.
I'm sure you'll get better answers by looking at a few basic ethics books. Hume is pretty readable for a beginner, as long as you're paying attention.
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote: Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
Everything you know now before you where born you knew it is simply that once the correct choice is made the correct amount of effort the knowledge is given, We have said before all knowledge is waves this is correct your brain has a deep connection to the universe you occupy you dont realize it yet as a species.
You can say that but you have literally no evidence whatsoever.
There is no point to life. Animals exist because they evolved and survived by following internal programs that lead them to happiness, but that doesn't mean you should try to evolve or survive or grant yourself happiness. Many people come up with a reason for the point of their own life but that doesn't mean it actually exists or that their own meaning is the same meaning for someone else.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Many things, food, family, shelter, pictures of Megan Fox. Maslow created a pyramid that explains what helps give us happiness at different levels. All someone really needs to do is believe they are happy and they will be happy but it may be very difficult to make yourself believe you are happy without having things you want. I think understanding yourself and other people will help a lot and I know many people will disagree with me on this but in reality almost all other things can be bought with money so knowledge and money should get you pretty far.
What are your most important values ?
This is vague, in order for something to be important you first need a goal so that you can assign weights to different values. Since life has no goal and therefore no value is more important than any other I guess I will pick the values that differentiate me from others and are positive attributes, which would be intelligence, treating others as I believe they would treat me, and being trustworthy.
What is good and what is evil ?
The normal concept of good and evil do not exist because we live in a universe where only one future can happen due to hard determinism. In the absence of free will most will agree there is no good or evil. Since I still like to engage in discussions about the topic I often use a form of utilitarianism which defines good as that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people
What is Wisdom ?
Understanding how and why things work.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I like Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking a lot because of their understanding about hard determinism and how the world really works which I consider like a pinnacle of a TOE although most people wouldn't consider Einstein or Hawking philosophers I find almost all very intelligent people have a certain philosophy and understanding of it. I like certain thoughts of a large number of popular philosophers.
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
I hope I don't butcher this but my favorite is from Nietchze "Now that God is dead and we have killed him there will not be a river wide enough to wash away all of the blood." I like it because Nietchze understood that people can be fragile and if they have already grown up with a social framework like do not kill because god doesn't like it and you do something to disrupt that pillar of beliefs like convincing to them god no longer exists they may fall into distress.
Here's a couple more “I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." - Bertrand Russell
What the fuck is this debate about? WE WILL ALL FUCKING DIE OUT ANYWAY. Jesus fucking christ, please stop arguing over the shit. We will all die, and so we need to make the best out of our lives, enjoying every moment as much as we can with our families, friends, girlfriends, whatever. We will all fucking die....
ALSO, WE'RE PRETTY EVIL BY NATURE. I HEAR DARWINS APPROVAL OF THIS TOO.
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote: Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
Everything you know now before you where born you knew it is simply that once the correct choice is made the correct amount of effort the knowledge is given, We have said before all knowledge is waves this is correct your brain has a deep connection to the universe you occupy you dont realize it yet as a species.
You can say that but you have literally no evidence whatsoever.
While you seek proof of everything the universe will reframe from giving you it, it is only when faith is shown will the proof be given to crystalize it within your experience.
You can not anticipate truth it must be aloud to flow into you, hence to seek proof is to prevent truth the intent must be correct in order for the universe to give you the answer, it is only when the one seeking allows the creator to show them after much effort does the answer get revealed, all effort leads to a eventual revealing but only if the receiptant is open to the answer if your cup is full it can never be refilled.
On July 21 2010 16:41 Maji wrote: While you seek proof of everything the universe will reframe from giving you it, it is only when faith is shown will the proof be given to crystalize it within your experience.
Nonsense.
You can not anticipate truth it must be aloud to flow into you, hence to seek proof is to prevent truth the intent must be correct in order for the universe to give you the answer, it is only when the one seeking allows the creator to show them after much effort does the answer get revealed, all effort leads to a eventual revealing but only if the receiptant is open to the answer if your cup is full it can never be refilled.
Prove it.
You're just spouting nonsensical claims about the nature of things with no reasoning, evidence, or logic. This is worse than trying to read Hegel.
On July 21 2010 16:41 Maji wrote: While you seek proof of everything the universe will reframe from giving you it, it is only when faith is shown will the proof be given to crystalize it within your experience.
You can not anticipate truth it must be aloud to flow into you, hence to seek proof is to prevent truth the intent must be correct in order for the universe to give you the answer, it is only when the one seeking allows the creator to show them after much effort does the answer get revealed, all effort leads to a eventual revealing but only if the receiptant is open to the answer if your cup is full it can never be refilled.
Prove it.
You're just spouting nonsensical claims about the nature of things with no reasoning, evidence, or logic. This is worse than trying to read Hegel.
Your lack of understanding shows us your current intelligence is to low to understand complexity of design. Hence we will leave you to your lower distortions.
its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
On July 21 2010 17:27 Telcontar wrote: its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
it only feels 'empty' when you deliberately try to put meaning to it. If you just get over the whole 'meaning' thing, it doesn't feel that empty.
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote: Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
Please go on. I would love to see some guy on the internets prove the pursuits of thousands of years of the world's most intelligent minds futile
What is the point of life ? -> Figure out how you would like to define point -> Figure out how you would like to define life
What can bring you lasting happiness ? -> Figure out how you would like to define happiness -> Figure out how you would define lasting
What are your most important values ? -> Figure out how you would define important -> Figure out how you would define values
What is good and what is evil ? -> Figure out how you would define good -> Figure out how you would define evil
What is Wisdom ? -> Define it, theres your answer.
Really, all these questions are simply questions of definition and language. People are just making things complicated when most arguments belong in an entirely differnt topic.
But hell there is only 1 philosophy topic on this forum so might as well express it all here. I understand =]
On July 23 2010 06:41 shammythefox wrote: Please go on. I would love to see some guy on the internets prove the pursuits of thousands of years of the world's most intelligent minds futile
You can't know anything via perception except that you have perceived X.
You might be able to prove that, had we been present at the time of the big bang (or whatever) we would have perceived a big bang, but that doesn't get you any closer to proving what actually happened.
Doesn't prove anything futile unless you insist on clinging to beliefs about an objective reality.
On July 21 2010 17:27 Telcontar wrote: its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
I quit thinking about things for a while when I did this lol. It did get better for me so I hope it does for you too.
On July 21 2010 17:27 Telcontar wrote: its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
I quit thinking about things for a while when I did this lol. It did get better for me so I hope it does for you too.
Nihilism is by its very nature sad, but its sort of countered by existentialism. Try reading about this.
In terms of general doctrines, I'm basically in line with existentialism, that there's no external meaning and that it must be supplied by an individual for oneself and that the key to a good life is to find whatever harmonies one can in the face of inner obstacles.
What I want to post really, though, is a specific theory I've been tossing around in my head for a while now. The initial line of thought was sparked by debate on the the question "Does God exist?" but it extends to encompass the questions of free will, a soul, causality, etc.. My answer I'm playing with is a very specific agnostic answer. I don't have a ton of philosophy study under my belt, so many things might be said better or could be summed up easier by a student of philosophy. I also have no idea with how rigorous it is, but it seems plausible to me and it keeps me happy while also being aimed at truth rather than ignorance, so I find it very harmonious. But I want to hear what people think.
I will consider God an entity that exists outside of the universe's physical structure and is not bound by any law which governs substances inside the universe, including any laws that are beyond our ability/too complex to comprehend but still do follow a distinct, necessary cause -> effect relationship.
The first thing I want to do is to outline two broad conceptions of the God question and say that they are necessarily the only possibilities. The first is a strictly mechanistic, atheistic universe. Without the existence of God, certain infallible laws of nature govern the interaction of everything in the universe. If they didn't, basically no question could ever be answerable. Why is the sky blue? If it's not because of universal properties of matter and electromagnetic waves, and not because of God's will then why does it consistently occur every time similar conditions exist? Or even not consistently occur despite the same conditions if that ever happened? There would be no reason. Every single thing that happens, every event then, is a direct result of the condition that existed before it (though the condition that exists is a very, very complex thing, taking into account the entire state of the universe at any instant) and the interaction of that condition with the laws of nature. What this does is validate scientific reasoning, and it has consequences for the impact on our human lives.
In this conception of the universe, we are only matter, matter that is classified as alive, animal, mammal, of a certain species, etc., and nothing beyond that. A consequence is that nothing special separates us from animals, we just evolved along a path that led us to develop higher mental capabilities than other animals on Earth, but beyond that, a more applicable consequence is that our entire experience is a product of physical reactions. Since in this version of the universe, there is nothing which can defy any law of the universe, we cannot have any sort of immaterial soul because there has to be something that led to that soul existing and having the characteristics it does, and if some causal path led to its creation, then it's also an explainable part of the universe (albeit one that eludes our present explanations) and is governed by laws (that we might not understand), and it must also be present somehow inside the universe (in another dimension or something? who knows, but it definitely is not immaterial, and it's a product of causes). Any impulse or thought a person has, and really the whole totality of someone's experience, then is not something created by a soul that can't exist. It is instead either a product of the brain and the bio-chemical reactions that take place there, the causes which govern this material other thing that's not really a soul which might exist in some other dimension (Descartes thought it was somewhere in the brain didn't he?). Therefore, there can't be anything which could really be conceived as free will, can there? There's no input of anything that's really "me" in any decision I make if it's all just matter following laws at a molecular level in my brain. (See this.) In humans, our brains may have developed in a way to give us the illusion of free will, or a self that is not purely physical but the mechanistic, atheist universe has no room for those to actually exist.
A further extension of this relates to predetermination. If the course of the universe is truly a chain of necessary cause and effect, then knowing the state of the universe at any point in time and the laws which govern it, the events that follow could be predicted 100% accurately. Or alternatively it is based on an interaction of necessary cause and effect and pure randomness (any sort of quasi-randomness is predictable with full information of the state of the universe).
I believe all of the above to be consequences of atheism and I challenge anyone to provide an account of atheism that does not have the characteristics I outlined.
Now I will talk briefly about my personal struggle with atheism. Once I learned a bit of science, particularly about the brain and how physical aspects of the brain link to thoughts, feelings, moods, etc., I could not for years dispel the idea that the above was the true nature of the universe. The idea depressed me, and it absolutely felt wrong, but no idea I came up with was more reasonable. There are some definite hangups in it though. First, there's the prime mover problem. The first thing to start the chain could not have happened based on some cause, it had to have just happened spontaneously? Or alternatively the chain has gone on forever or is somehow circular? None of these are compelling, none answer the question of why? Why does something exist instead of nothing? The main answer to this objection without undermining anything else of the above is Deism. There was one exception to the laws of nature, that God exists and created everything and the laws they follow, but that that is the final end of the influence of God. I group Deism with atheism in this theory I'm developing though because both give the same answers to the questions of predetermination, souls, free will and other relevant questions.
Beyond this though, the main hangup was an utter rejection of the idea of not having a self and not having free will. Why do I even have this illusion of self if I also have the capability to rationally dispel that illusion? And despite the fact that it's harmful to my well-being to dispel the illusion (I cannot be happy and live well without some self-efficacy), my impulse is entirely to try to, to discover truth? Am I that defective of an organism?
Therefore, in order to protect my well-being, enter myself. I will now presume that I do have a true self, one which is in control of itself, can have true whims and freedom and is not subject to a rational, explainable cause and effect which would stop it from being truly my own. How could such a soul exist, how could it come into being? Nothing in a universe governed as above, by causality, could create something like that. Only something that itself transcends causality could cause this soul. So this transcendental something must exist (hello God) to cause a soul to exist. Now this raises all sorts of hairy questions. What has and what doesn't have a soul? When does the soul link with a body? When is the soul created (suppose God created every soul that would be necessary forever at the beginning of creation and they live out in soul-land somewhere and whenever something is brought into existence a soul, somehow chosen, links with it and is brought into the universe)? Are they recycled? Are they ever destroyed? It's impossible to know, but I believe many consistent stories are possible, especially since the entire thing is dependent on the existence of something that follows no rules of causality and the universe we know.
Now the mere fact that God (the transcendental something) exists and is not bound by the logical laws of our universe suggests that it could potentially do anything, and thus achieves the all-powerful status which is commonly assigned. The concept of the will of God also fits as it's the only real way we can conceive of why anything regarding the non-explainable something happens. You can never explain why it happens, therefore it's arbitrary, and the model of arbitrary we have is in our own free selves, when we want something, we say it's our will. Therefore the reason we assign to the outside, unbound arbitrary reasoning is that it is that something's will.
Since this arbitrary will is free to interact with our universe, this undermines the idea that even excluding or taking into account matters of our free will, causality can be assumed. It might be true that God will never interfere with the universe's workings other than in creation and the method souls access the world, but it's by no means necessary or can be assumed. Therefore the foundations of any sort of science or rationality cannot be valid.
This presents another conundrum, as if this is true, then my entire essay I just wrote is 100% bunk since it relies on logical building, we have no reason to trust science or not fear that God might decide (in the nebulous unexplainable way impulses happen) one day "Experiment over" and eliminate the universe for no explainable reason.
The bridge that I eventually developed, the main idea of this whole entire post, is an attempt to solve the seeming dilemma here. On one hand, I'm a slave to the necessary actions of tiny particles, while on the other I'm free but nothing can be trusted, not even the fabric of the universe. And I absolutely have no way of discovering which one is true or of saying one of them is definitely false. So in a weird bit of insight I looked to ideas we seem to have adopted in quantum physics (I'm also not a real student of quantum physics, so please correct misconceptions I might have) because there seemed to be oddly similar dilemmas there. Namely that of quantum superposition and the uncertainty principle, the fact that given a state of being which is unobservable, the interaction between them is not to assign it to one or the other (only appropriate upon observation, which is impossible) but to describe it by a complex in-between state that is only removed by assigning or requiring it to be assigned to one or the other. In this way the nature of the universe can be correctly thought of as either one, or as a complex hybrid which allows it to take the natures of each when necessary to understand certain things (as in the wave/particle duality).
Most of your post looks like a bit of word salad to me.
I would point out that it doesn't appear to be actually true that the physical world is deterministic at small scales.
I think you are trying very hard to rationalize a concept of "free will" that is unclear and unnecessary. Your line of reasoning is something like "since we must have free will, God must exist to give us powers outside of the physical universe." I sure don't see enough evidence for the former to justify the latter.
I am personally pretty satisfied with the anthropic principle as a reason why something exists rather than nothing, and I don't understand how postulating a God gives you a reason, since then the question just becomes why God exists instead of nothing.
There is no point to life. Animals exist because they evolved and survived by following internal programs that lead them to happiness, but that doesn't mean you should try to evolve or survive or grant yourself happiness. Many people come up with a reason for the point of their own life but that doesn't mean it actually exists or that their own meaning is the same meaning for someone else.
Many things, food, family, shelter, pictures of Megan Fox. Maslow created a pyramid that explains what helps give us happiness at different levels. All someone really needs to do is believe they are happy and they will be happy but it may be very difficult to make yourself believe you are happy without having things you want. I think understanding yourself and other people will help a lot and I know many people will disagree with me on this but in reality almost all other things can be bought with money so knowledge and money should get you pretty far.
This is vague, in order for something to be important you first need a goal so that you can assign weights to different values. Since life has no goal and therefore no value is more important than any other I guess I will pick the values that differentiate me from others and are positive attributes, which would be intelligence, treating others as I believe they would treat me, and being trustworthy.
The normal concept of good and evil do not exist because we live in a universe where only one future can happen due to hard determinism. In the absence of free will most will agree there is no good or evil. Since I still like to engage in discussions about the topic I often use a form of utilitarianism which defines good as that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I like Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking a lot because of their understanding about hard determinism and how the world really works which I consider like a pinnacle of a TOE although most people wouldn't consider Einstein or Hawking philosophers I find almost all very intelligent people have a certain philosophy and understanding of it. I like certain thoughts of a large number of popular philosophers.
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
I hope I don't butcher this but my favorite is from Nietchze "Now that God is dead and we have killed him there will not be a river wide enough to wash away all of the blood." I like it because Nietchze understood that people can be fragile and if they have already grown up with a social framework like do not kill because god doesn't like it and you do something to disrupt that pillar of beliefs like convincing to them god no longer exists they may fall into distress.
Here's a couple more “I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." - Bertrand Russell
Why are you so sure about hard determinism ?
To prove hard determinism you need to understand the very first cause in the chain reaction of things . What if that cause was of free will that gave birth to the chain reaction of free will choices ??? You can try to prove this idea to be wrong all you like but I would say that it can`t be proved. I am of the opinion that this universe is guided by the pricinpal of free will. Though we unnecesarily steal each other`s freedom because we live more in the world governed by dollar than in the world governed by benevolence.
You are free to the degree you are able to co-create your life. This is dependant on many factors, possibly the largest one being your personal Wisdom.
i don't know how anyone who understands the basic mechanics of the nervous system could believe in "free will". do you believe your thoughts are uncaused, randomly, spontaneously generating out of nothing?
On July 23 2010 22:45 catamorphist wrote: Most of your post looks like a bit of word salad to me.
I would point out that it doesn't appear to be actually true that the physical world is deterministic at small scales.
I think you are trying very hard to rationalize a concept of "free will" that is unclear and unnecessary. Your line of reasoning is something like "since we must have free will, God must exist to give us powers outside of the physical universe." I sure don't see enough evidence for the former to justify the latter.
I am personally pretty satisfied with the anthropic principle as a reason why something exists rather than nothing, and I don't understand how postulating a God gives you a reason, since then the question just becomes why God exists instead of nothing.
I did try to address the fact that it is not necessarily purely deterministic, but is it incorrect to say (in an atheist framework) it is either deterministic or conditional on pure randomness? I still believe it's not compatible with the influence from any form of the self. It is still dependent solely on the movements of particles and chance. Reading some of the arguments, it seems to be often defined as moral responsibility that I'm looking for? The freedom to have moral responsibility?
How might one have the freedom required for moral responsibility without having an immaterial soul that is not built on a combination of determinism and statistics/probability alone?
Saying we must have free will is a problem, because thinking directly I am definitely not convinced this is true. That's one of the points I was trying to make about why we have to think more cleverly about it in my opinion.
I don't buy the anthropic principle as an answer to that question, to me it's a tautology (of the pointless variety in this context). Something exists because we exist to ask that question. That's what it seems like you are arguing. Instead of using the word why, I'll say what led to something existing? That's a more specific question that can't be answered with the anthropic principle. Asking why God exists is not the same as asking why something physical exists, because the something physical has to abide by certain rules. No one has answered "What led to something phsyical existing?" while staying in the physical laws of our universe as far as I know because the rules don't allow for anything to happen that's not due to the previous condition and the outcomes of specific chances. But since God by definition is outside the rules, there's no rule that says something existing has to lead to Him.
I've been raised as a scientist all my life. I know how dissatisfying and "cheating" using God as an explanation is to a lot of people, but when the alternatives, taken alone/individually, are equally flawed to me I feel like some outside the box thinking was sort of needed to reconcile the viewpoints. That's really my motivation with this.
On July 21 2010 17:27 Telcontar wrote: its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
I quit thinking about things for a while when I did this lol. It did get better for me so I hope it does for you too.
Nihilism is by its very nature sad, but its sort of countered by existentialism. Try reading about this.
I just went on to read Searle and then everything surrounding consciousness. Lots of links to great papers here. http://consc.net/online/1/all#general
On July 23 2010 22:45 catamorphist wrote: Most of your post looks like a bit of word salad to me.
I would point out that it doesn't appear to be actually true that the physical world is deterministic at small scales.
I think you are trying very hard to rationalize a concept of "free will" that is unclear and unnecessary. Your line of reasoning is something like "since we must have free will, God must exist to give us powers outside of the physical universe." I sure don't see enough evidence for the former to justify the latter.
I am personally pretty satisfied with the anthropic principle as a reason why something exists rather than nothing, and I don't understand how postulating a God gives you a reason, since then the question just becomes why God exists instead of nothing.
I did try to address the fact that it is not necessarily purely deterministic, but is it incorrect to say (in an atheist framework) it is either deterministic or conditional on pure randomness? I still believe it's not compatible with the influence from any form of the self. It is still dependent solely on the movements of particles and chance. Reading some of the arguments, it seems to be often defined as moral responsibility that I'm looking for? The freedom to have moral responsibility?
How might one have the freedom required for moral responsibility without having an immaterial soul that is not built on a combination of determinism and statistics/probability alone?
Saying we must have free will is a problem, because thinking directly I am definitely not convinced this is true. That's one of the points I was trying to make about why we have to think more cleverly about it in my opinion.
I don't buy the anthropic principle as an answer to that question, to me it's a tautology (of the pointless variety in this context). Something exists because we exist to ask that question. That's what it seems like you are arguing. Instead of using the word why, I'll say what led to something existing? That's a more specific question that can't be answered with the anthropic principle. Asking why God exists is not the same as asking why something physical exists, because the something physical has to abide by certain rules. No one has answered "What led to something phsyical existing?" while staying in the physical laws of our universe as far as I know because the rules don't allow for anything to happen that's not due to the previous condition and the outcomes of specific chances. But since God by definition is outside the rules, there's no rule that says something existing has to lead to Him.
I've been raised as a scientist all my life. I know how dissatisfying and "cheating" using God as an explanation is to a lot of people, but when the alternatives, taken alone/individually, are equally flawed to me I feel like some outside the box thinking was sort of needed to reconcile the viewpoints. That's really my motivation with this.
yeah, you even touch on the point yourself: it's all too convenient to just shout "GOD! MAGIC!" when we don't know an answer. i'd rather go the honest route and admit that i don't know. maybe it's not even appropriate to ask what led to something physical existing; maybe something physical always existed.
On July 24 2010 00:36 Win.win wrote: i don't know how anyone who understands the basic mechanics of the nervous system could believe in "free will". do you believe your thoughts are uncaused, randomly, spontaneously generating out of nothing?
I think this is why Dualism is so popular, so that people can keep on thinking that they have free will.
On July 24 2010 00:43 ZapRoffo wrote: I did try to address the fact that it is not necessarily purely deterministic, but is it incorrect to say (in an atheist framework) it is either deterministic or conditional on pure randomness? I still believe it's not compatible with the influence from any form of the self. It is still dependent solely on the movements of particles and chance. Reading some of the arguments, it seems to be often defined as moral responsibility that I'm looking for? The freedom to have moral responsibility?
I don't think you need free will to justify moral responsibility. Morals, ethics, and laws all exist to help people act in a way that is mutually beneficial. If you care about the collective good, then it generally makes sense to act morally and to punish others for acting immorally. It doesn't matter whether it's "just" or not to make moral judgments; it's rational to do so.
I feel strange having conversations about free will, because I'm never quite sure what the discussion is about. I operate under the assumption that my brain works according to the usual physical laws, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in fifty years, someone could simulate me on a computer or predict what I am about to do through inspection of my brain. However, I don't see how that removes any of my volition or control; I am the process on my brain that makes those decisions. If that's a (roughly) deterministic process, then so what? No reason I shouldn't be reliable.
I'm totally ignorant about historical conceptions of free will, though, so maybe I'm missing something.
On July 24 2010 00:43 ZapRoffo wrote: I don't buy the anthropic principle as an answer to that question, to me it's a tautology (of the pointless variety in this context). Something exists because we exist to ask that question. That's what it seems like you are arguing. Instead of using the word why, I'll say what led to something existing? That's a more specific question that can't be answered with the anthropic principle. Asking why God exists is not the same as asking why something physical exists, because the something physical has to abide by certain rules. No one has answered "What led to something phsyical existing?" while staying in the physical laws of our universe as far as I know because the rules don't allow for anything to happen that's not due to the previous condition and the outcomes of specific chances. But since God by definition is outside the rules, there's no rule that says something existing has to lead to Him.
I agree with you that the anthropic principle doesn't address the "how," just the "what." But two hundred years ago, no one had answered "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" Given a physical mystery, it seems a lot more sensible to wait and think about it scientifically some more than to assume it's impossible and that God did it.
On July 24 2010 00:36 Win.win wrote: i don't know how anyone who understands the basic mechanics of the nervous system could believe in "free will". do you believe your thoughts are uncaused, randomly, spontaneously generating out of nothing?
I think this is why Dualism is so popular, so that people can keep on thinking that they have free will.
On July 24 2010 02:30 catamorphist wrote:I feel strange having conversations about free will, because I'm never quite sure what the discussion is about. I operate under the assumption that my brain works according to the usual physical laws, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in fifty years, someone could simulate me on a computer or predict what I am about to do through inspection of my brain. However, I don't see how that removes any of my volition or control; I am the process on my brain that makes those decisions. If that's a (roughly) deterministic process, then so what? No reason I shouldn't be reliable.
Well a lot of the argument about free will does seem to come down to what people think the requirements for free will are exactly.
I think that free will would have to be a decision making process which is both free of cause and affect and randomness. If your decisions are cause and affect then I feel that that means your decisions are simply being made by everything that has happened prior to the decision. If your decisions are random then someone may as well be throwing a die and having you act according to the outcome. Either way I don't think you could claim to have free will.
Of course my standards for what free will is seem pretty much impossible to meet, as a matter of fact it seems common sense to say that it is impossible to meet them so naturally I don't believe in free will.
On July 24 2010 03:37 Robstickle wrote: I think that free will would have to be a decision making process which is both free of cause and affect and randomness. If your decisions are cause and affect then I feel that that means your decisions are simply being made by everything that has happened prior to the decision. If your decisions are random then someone may as well be throwing a die and having you act according to the outcome. Either way I don't think you could claim to have free will.
Everything that has happened prior to the decision has influenced the decision only insofar as it has determined the current state of my brain. When I say "I make the decision", what I mean is "the result will depend on what happens in my mind." What else could it mean?
The universe behaves in a completely deterministic sense the way I understand it. For some reason people think that the heisenberg uncertainty principle proves that it doesn't or they quote Einstein saying something like "god doesn't play dice"
If we take a really small particle like an electron, and we shoot a photon at some empty space, and that photon hits the electron, and bounces off, and goes into one of our instruments, the electron will bounce off in another direction. When our photon reaches our instrument that electron will be going on a different course, and will be at a different place than it was right before the photon hit it. That's all the heisenberg uncertainty principle says. Despite popular belief I don't think it should be impossible to design an experiment to truly discover the location of the electron some time after the photon hits it. We just aren't there yet technologically.
What I'm saying is, if a photon hits an electron, and the electron goes to point b 1 second after getting hit. And then we go back in time. And the photon hits the electron again. That electron will still be at point b 1 second after getting hit. There is no random chance that can change this to make the electron go to point c. There is no uncertainty. It's just a misnomer.
And free will exists if you follow existentialism, because even in a deterministic universe, where there is only one course of action you can visualize multiple different futures. First thing's first, I will admit that if one knows the course of every subatomic particle in the universe, one can predict the future to 100% certainty from now until the fat lady sings.
However let's say that you have a test tomorrow that you need to study for today. If you don't study you will fail. According to determinism the universe has already decided whether or not you will study. However you don't know what the universe has decided for you. Therefore you can choose whether or not to study for the test and you can choose whether or not to fail.
Now I'm just going to be drowned out. I don't know why I bother.
On July 24 2010 06:39 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: If we take a really small particle like an electron, and we shoot a photon at some empty space, and that photon hits the electron, and bounces off, and goes into one of our instruments, the electron will bounce off in another direction. When our photon reaches our instrument that electron will be going on a different course, and will be at a different place than it was right before the photon hit it. That's all the heisenberg uncertainty principle says.
Despite popular belief I don't think it should be impossible to design an experiment to truly discover the location of the electron some time after the photon hits it. We just aren't there yet technologically.
What I'm saying is, if a photon hits an electron, and the electron goes to point b 1 second after getting hit. And then we go back in time. And the photon hits the electron again. That electron will still be at point b 1 second after getting hit. There is no random chance that can change this to make the electron go to point c. There is no uncertainty. It's just a misnomer.
I really don't believe you are at all correct. Photons and electrons don't "move" in the way that you're supposing they do. Their interactions modify the quantum state of the system they reside in, in a deterministic way. The way that we measure the quantum state afterward is by observing the physical results, whose statistical distribution is determined by the state. There's definitely no getting around the fact that the physical results are probabilistic, and not deterministic on the level of a single particle, unless you assume non-local hidden variables a la Bohm.
(Disclaimer: Not a physicist, but this is all pretty fundamental stuff; and my description is that of the realist interpretation.)
On July 24 2010 06:39 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: If we take a really small particle like an electron, and we shoot a photon at some empty space, and that photon hits the electron, and bounces off, and goes into one of our instruments, the electron will bounce off in another direction. When our photon reaches our instrument that electron will be going on a different course, and will be at a different place than it was right before the photon hit it. That's all the heisenberg uncertainty principle says.
Despite popular belief I don't think it should be impossible to design an experiment to truly discover the location of the electron some time after the photon hits it. We just aren't there yet technologically.
What I'm saying is, if a photon hits an electron, and the electron goes to point b 1 second after getting hit. And then we go back in time. And the photon hits the electron again. That electron will still be at point b 1 second after getting hit. There is no random chance that can change this to make the electron go to point c. There is no uncertainty. It's just a misnomer.
I really don't believe you are at all correct. Photons and electrons don't "move" in the way that you're supposing they do. Their interactions modify the quantum state of the system they reside in, in a deterministic way. The way that we measure the quantum state afterward is by observing the physical results, whose statistical distribution is determined by the state. There's definitely no getting around the fact that the physical results are probabilistic, and not deterministic on the level of a single particle, unless you assume non-local hidden variables a la Bohm.
(Disclaimer: Not a physicist, but this is all pretty fundamental stuff; and my description is that of the realist interpretation.)
I like how nice you are at destroying my argument. Must be hard. I don't understand the physics too well, I was just trying to recall what I'd read about heisenberg's microscope from a textbook. I would ask a physicist to elucidate on the situation but according to the wikipedia page on the uncertainty principle, they're debating the issue as well.
On July 23 2010 23:07 UFO wrote: Why are you so sure about hard determinism ?
To prove hard determinism you need to understand the very first cause in the chain reaction of things . What if that cause was of free will that gave birth to the chain reaction of free will choices ??? You can try to prove this idea to be wrong all you like but I would say that it can`t be proved. I am of the opinion that this universe is guided by the pricinpal of free will. Though we unnecesarily steal each other`s freedom because we live more in the world governed by dollar than in the world governed by benevolence.
You are free to the degree you are able to co-create your life. This is dependant on many factors, possibly the largest one being your personal Wisdom.
I'm sure about determinism because I've given it many years of thought and I've come to understand it is actually more reasonable than the universe not being deterministic just like it's more reasonable the Christian god of the bible does not exist.
You wouldn't need to know the first cause but you would need to know every cause after that and like most things in life including god you can not prove them one way or another so we need to look at evidence to see which is more likely.
Science suggests there is no room for free will. Continually things we thought were because of will power are being described in terms of science and how their behavior is entirely determined. In order to have free will or make a choice we would have to be outside the realm of science or metaphysical like gods which can move a neuron one way instead of another with no cause behind it. It's actually pretty egotistical and radical to believe that we are so different from everything around us that behaves so deterministically that somewhere in our evolution we were given the ability to choose not to do what the complicated physics of our bodies decides.
Opponents point to quantum mechanics which suggests that on a very small scale things are random and not deterministic but that doesn't help free will at all and things always appear random when you don't know how they work. Most people believe when they click a button on their computer that it is generating a real random number but it is really just determined by something else.
On July 24 2010 06:39 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: For some reason people think that the heisenberg uncertainty principle proves that it doesn't or they quote Einstein saying something like "god doesn't play dice"
Einstein like myself did not believe quantum mechanics was a good model and he made that comment as a defense for determinism because he didn't think at a fundamental level physics was random. If opponents of determinism are quoting that line from Einstein they are either confused or your confused in labeling them as opponents of determinism. Hopefully we'll eventual understand why quantum mechanics appears random even though no progress on that has been made for a long time. In the meantime everything larger than the quantum level behaves exactly as it's meant to and so the laws of physics almost perfectly describe our world. The imperfections in our predictions continue to get smaller as our knowledge expands.
On July 24 2010 06:39 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: If we take a really small particle like an electron, and we shoot a photon at some empty space, and that photon hits the electron, and bounces off, and goes into one of our instruments, the electron will bounce off in another direction. When our photon reaches our instrument that electron will be going on a different course, and will be at a different place than it was right before the photon hit it. That's all the heisenberg uncertainty principle says.
Despite popular belief I don't think it should be impossible to design an experiment to truly discover the location of the electron some time after the photon hits it. We just aren't there yet technologically.
What I'm saying is, if a photon hits an electron, and the electron goes to point b 1 second after getting hit. And then we go back in time. And the photon hits the electron again. That electron will still be at point b 1 second after getting hit. There is no random chance that can change this to make the electron go to point c. There is no uncertainty. It's just a misnomer.
I really don't believe you are at all correct. Photons and electrons don't "move" in the way that you're supposing they do. Their interactions modify the quantum state of the system they reside in, in a deterministic way. The way that we measure the quantum state afterward is by observing the physical results, whose statistical distribution is determined by the state. There's definitely no getting around the fact that the physical results are probabilistic, and not deterministic on the level of a single particle, unless you assume non-local hidden variables a la Bohm.
(Disclaimer: Not a physicist, but this is all pretty fundamental stuff; and my description is that of the realist interpretation.)
Hehe collision of electron with photons is indeed tied to timetravel and interdimensional travel, but remember that a electron and photon itself is also part of waves, so you could say they are themself constructs from those waves given a purpose in a system.
So heres the question to you does physics act the same in all realms of exsistance? What is the One constant that does not change and what function does such a constant play within the exsistance of matter.
But proton and electron collusions much more interesting if trying to open say a conduit between barriors , photons travel through electron gateway past hyperdimensional threshold however you could say it works like a network to send information in form of photons 'waves - particules' between the different dimensions using hyperdimensional gateways which are subatomic particules.
Humans are yet to discover the multidimensional exsistance you are exsisting within or how everything is interlinked through such gateways I just suggested to you, windows within windows.
I'm still having a hard time believing that a particle would behave differently if it were collided with once, then you went back in time, and it were collided with again. If this is the case then the universe is still deterministic and my explanation was merely a simplification. Everything in my argument still holds.
To prove hard determinism you need to understand the very first cause in the chain reaction of things . What if that cause was of free will that gave birth to the chain reaction of free will choices ??? You can try to prove this idea to be wrong all you like but I would say that it can`t be proved. I am of the opinion that this universe is guided by the pricinpal of free will. Though we unnecesarily steal each other`s freedom because we live more in the world governed by dollar than in the world governed by benevolence.
You are free to the degree you are able to co-create your life. This is dependant on many factors, possibly the largest one being your personal Wisdom.
The very notion of "free will" is absurd. It literally cannot exist without a mystical or religious spiritual identity. Determinism may or may not be true as it applies to human actions, but even if it isn't the notion of "free will" is inane. Actions have precedents. That precedent is either entirely material (determinism) or partly quantum (random). In order for free will to exist, that precedent must be spawned from a separate of self that exists outside of the physical universe.
ie: A soul. Mysticism and Religion, not philosophy.
Explain to me what is free will physically. What is the physical phenomenon that describes free will. it is literally impossible. Quantum indeterminacy simply means you do things completely randomly, like the flip of a quantum coin, which imo, is even worse for humanistic principals and idealism then just determinism, which isn't that much of a stretch, considering fate and destiny, as well as religious predestination, are all relatively acceptable in our society, while our actions be entirely random is a territory we haven't even begun to rationalize.
taken alone/individually, are equally flawed to me I feel like some outside the box thinking was sort of needed to reconcile the viewpoints. That's really my motivation with this.
So in order to satisfy the lack of knowledge you invent it? Thats not very philophical of you :/
tbh I wish people would stop making threads about philosophy concerning "the big questions". The big questions are comprised of thousands of little questions, and each of them are very tangible and debatable. Debating about the big question before understanding individual components approaches the level of mysticism as the "God" thread. Or our dear old "High" thread :x.
I think a nice little thread about aestheticism or phenomenology would be far more productive and interesting tbh. Both of them could even relate to game design theory! If I were a philosopher and someone asked me "what is the purpose of life", I'd tell him to shut up, I'd have work to do.
On July 21 2010 17:27 Telcontar wrote: its a painful thing when you wake up one day and realise you're a nihilist and how empty everything in this universe seems. maybe im just going through a rough patch but i just cant shake off the idea that all of this is nothing.
I quit thinking about things for a while when I did this lol. It did get better for me so I hope it does for you too.
Nihilism is by its very nature sad, but its sort of countered by existentialism. Try reading about this.
I just went on to read Searle and then everything surrounding consciousness. Lots of links to great papers here. http://consc.net/online/1/all#general
On July 24 2010 11:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Lol maji, always an interesting take on things.
I'm still having a hard time believing that a particle would behave differently if it were collided with once, then you went back in time, and it were collided with again. If this is the case then the universe is still deterministic and my explanation was merely a simplification. Everything in my argument still holds.
In a quantum system, the fundamental problem with this idea is that the current observable position and velocity of particles is not sufficient to represent the current quantum state; it's just a consequence of the state. The state itself consists of probability amplitudes for each particle, not positions and velocities. So even if somehow you obtained "perfect information" about the state at a point in time (which isn't possible, anyway) and you were able to revert the whole world back to that state and start again, the result would probably not be the same from your perspective.
Sorry if this is unclear, I might not be explaining it very well, and anyway, it belongs more in a textbook than in a paragraph. I also don't understand it very well myself; I've studied the actual math very little.
On July 24 2010 11:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Lol maji, always an interesting take on things.
I'm still having a hard time believing that a particle would behave differently if it were collided with once, then you went back in time, and it were collided with again. If this is the case then the universe is still deterministic and my explanation was merely a simplification. Everything in my argument still holds.
In a quantum system, the fundamental problem with this idea is that the current observable position and velocity of particles is not sufficient to represent the current quantum state; it's just a consequence of the state. The state itself consists of probability amplitudes for each particle, not positions and velocities. So even if somehow you obtained "perfect information" about the state at a point in time (which isn't possible, anyway) and you were able to revert the whole world back to that state and start again, the result would probably not be the same from your perspective.
Sorry if this is unclear, I might not be explaining it very well, and anyway, it belongs more in a textbook than in a paragraph. I also don't understand it very well myself; I've studied the actual math very little.
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
On July 24 2010 11:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Lol maji, always an interesting take on things.
I'm still having a hard time believing that a particle would behave differently if it were collided with once, then you went back in time, and it were collided with again. If this is the case then the universe is still deterministic and my explanation was merely a simplification. Everything in my argument still holds.
In a quantum system, the fundamental problem with this idea is that the current observable position and velocity of particles is not sufficient to represent the current quantum state; it's just a consequence of the state. The state itself consists of probability amplitudes for each particle, not positions and velocities. So even if somehow you obtained "perfect information" about the state at a point in time (which isn't possible, anyway) and you were able to revert the whole world back to that state and start again, the result would probably not be the same from your perspective.
Sorry if this is unclear, I might not be explaining it very well, and anyway, it belongs more in a textbook than in a paragraph. I also don't understand it very well myself; I've studied the actual math very little.
humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
It was less for that post and more about his entire posting history. If you want to protest it, you can PM me instead of posting here. That is to say, don't post here to ask why Maji got banned.
On July 23 2010 06:41 shammythefox wrote: Please go on. I would love to see some guy on the internets prove the pursuits of thousands of years of the world's most intelligent minds futile
You can't know anything via perception except that you have perceived X.
You might be able to prove that, had we been present at the time of the big bang (or whatever) we would have perceived a big bang, but that doesn't get you any closer to proving what actually happened.
Doesn't prove anything futile unless you insist on clinging to beliefs about an objective reality.
A concept itself derived from perception. The idea that one cannot put too much faith in our tools is useful to a certain level, that level being when the tool is only apparent in one scenario, when the tool itself is the very manifestation of reality it ceases to become a perception and becomes the reality. Part of our understanding of gravity derived from galileo was described without the use of observation, simply thought, and a pristine understanding of logic. Now if you want to say that this thought was governed by the laws that rule the universe and these themselves are already skewed by this perception, then the original unperspected notion infact ceases to have meaning.
On July 24 2010 18:33 shammythefox wrote: A concept itself derived from perception. The idea that one cannot put too much faith in our tools is useful to a certain level, that level being when the tool is only apparent in one scenario, when the tool itself is the very manifestation of reality it ceases to become a perception and becomes the reality. Part of our understanding of gravity derived from galileo was described without the use of observation, simply thought, and a pristine understanding of logic. Now if you want to say that this thought was governed by the laws that rule the universe and these themselves are already skewed by this perception, then the original unperspected notion infact ceases to have meaning.
Well yes the "original" before perception pretty much doesn't have meaning, as far as I'm concerned, because it is unknowable.
On July 24 2010 18:33 shammythefox wrote: A concept itself derived from perception. The idea that one cannot put too much faith in our tools is useful to a certain level, that level being when the tool is only apparent in one scenario, when the tool itself is the very manifestation of reality it ceases to become a perception and becomes the reality. Part of our understanding of gravity derived from galileo was described without the use of observation, simply thought, and a pristine understanding of logic. Now if you want to say that this thought was governed by the laws that rule the universe and these themselves are already skewed by this perception, then the original unperspected notion infact ceases to have meaning.
Well yes the "original" before perception pretty much doesn't have meaning, as far as I'm concerned, because it is unknowable.
What i'm saying is not only does it not have meaning, in the fact that some laws of physics are derived without observation and thus directly from the universe, if perception does indeed skew these laws they must be skewed for the entire universe, and as this is the very object they govern the original was either a) impossible to be skewed or b) ceases to exist
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote: Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
I'll explain again, in another way, so maybe you will understand. There is no such thing in the real world as energy. You can't point and say "Look, here's energy." in the same way you can point to a rock or anything observable. It's a theoretical concept, created by humans. Understand now?
Which deeper questions? Sciences assumptions are tested everyday, and until they fail to represent the real world, they will keep being used.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
No it is not the same. Religion doesn't have any credibility, or past sucesses to have a reputation worth any faith. Science does. All it's theories are constantly tested and put to pressure to see if they hold, and unlike religion, there is more than enough evidence that supports the argument that it is evolving. You seem to be bashing science, because that's the position you want to be, even though the arguments makes no sense.
One interesting question is the mind-body problem.
Many people hold four beliefs that form an inconsistent tetrad; that is not all can be true, but up to three can be true.
1) The human mind is a spiritual thing 2) The human body is a material thing 3) Mind and body interact 4) Spirit and matter do not interact
Spiritual doesn't necessarily mean God or ghost, etc.; it means not physical or more than physical.
I reject number 1). The physical brain is the mind and there is not need to resort to beliefs in the nonphysical to explain the mind-body interactions.
We could also discuss other philosophical problems, such as theodicity, free will and ethics. I think that would be more interesting than the problems originally suggested. I think these problems have relevance to gaming. For example, if we do not have free will, what is the point of pretending to discuss strategy if our actions are already predetermined?
What I find most amusing is that the Cult of Science has no knowledge of its own history. They argue as if they have found the final answer when they can't even formulate a decent question.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote: Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
I'll explain again, in another way, so maybe you will understand. There is no such thing in the real world as energy. You can't point and say "Look, here's energy." in the same way you can point to a rock or anything observable. It's a theoretical concept, created by humans. Understand now?
Which deeper questions? Sciences assumptions are tested everyday, and until they fail to represent the real world, they will keep being used.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
No it is not the same. Religion doesn't have any credibility, or past sucesses to have a reputation worth any faith. Science does. All it's theories are constantly tested and put to pressure to see if they hold, and unlike religion, there is more than enough evidence that supports the argument that it is evolving. You seem to be bashing science, because that's the position you want to be, even though the arguments makes no sense.
And you haven't defined reality yet.
Cheers.
There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities.
On July 25 2010 17:07 Jerubaal wrote: What I find most amusing is that the Cult of Science has no knowledge of its own history. They argue as if they have found the final answer when they can't even formulate a decent question.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote: Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
I'll explain again, in another way, so maybe you will understand. There is no such thing in the real world as energy. You can't point and say "Look, here's energy." in the same way you can point to a rock or anything observable. It's a theoretical concept, created by humans. Understand now?
Which deeper questions? Sciences assumptions are tested everyday, and until they fail to represent the real world, they will keep being used.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
No it is not the same. Religion doesn't have any credibility, or past sucesses to have a reputation worth any faith. Science does. All it's theories are constantly tested and put to pressure to see if they hold, and unlike religion, there is more than enough evidence that supports the argument that it is evolving. You seem to be bashing science, because that's the position you want to be, even though the arguments makes no sense.
And you haven't defined reality yet.
Cheers.
There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
I didn't assume. I said science, unlike other beliefs, have shown it evolves with time, and is directly tied with reality since it does accurate predictions on it. It's a belief, but a special one. Beliving in unicorns and that when you drop an apple it will go to the ground, is not the same.
On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote:We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Well that depends. What do you mean by supernatural?
And i don't think the faith leap is the same, as i argued above.
Religions have evolved as well, though they will not admit it. Religions are not static; they add beliefs based on the culture around them and may even respond to scientific discovery (such as Galileo and the Catholic church). Evolution doesn't mean "progressively getting better", it means "becoming more adapted to the environment". For example, religious beliefs that discourage rational thought can be said to be more evolved, as such beliefs are more likely to lead to the preservation of the religion as a whole. Many atheists have this intelligent design view of religion; that all religion was created in a top-down manner by some mysterious cabal to control humanity. While individuals have certainly used religion for there own ends, there are larger evolutionary forces at work outside the control of any individual or group (or God). This can also explain the similarity of religions that had no previous contacts. Properties will emerge as they are naturally selected. Beliefs that are not falsifiable, separation from outsiders, concentration in a clerical elite, etc. would tend to naturally come about. It it true that both science and religion face uncertainty. Were they diverge is science seeks to find methods to quantify this uncertainty, make assumptions as simple and as self-apparent as possible when using deductive reasoning and to have a system for replication and minimizing errors when using inductive reasoning. So called "leap of faith" often denies and attempts to side-step this uncertainty. Both science and religion will hold beliefs of which no one can be certain. That is not where they converge; that is where they diverge.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote: There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities.
I don't think that you're using "supernatural" to mean the same thing as most people would. If "supernatural" just means "not yet understood", then it's a useless label; you can't ever test whether something's supernatural or not, and you might as well just say "not yet understood." Few people would say that things change from supernatural to natural as we figure them out.
Most people say "supernatural" when they mean "can't be understood", and they have some oddball reason in mind about the limits of reason or God or miracles why they think it can't be understood.
You guys should cite references when you're talking about whether science is "a belief", because it's not a big mystery problem*; it's been dealt with extensively first by Hume in the 1700s and more recently by Karl Popper. I agree with Popper's conclusion that although science is not logically justifiable, it's rational to believe in the predictive power of science, since it consists of the most easily falsifiable propositions about the world.
*It's often referred to as the "problem of induction", i.e. is induction justified, which is equivalent to asking, should we believe that there are rules about the world that will continue to hold in the future? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
On July 26 2010 07:12 XeliN wrote: But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
OK, but he didn't offer any evidence for that. He just pointed out that we don't understand lots of it right now.
On July 26 2010 07:12 XeliN wrote: But that is essentially what Zap is saying, that there is a possibility, perhaps a distinct one, that the universe "can't be understood" which by your own admission is akin to "Supernatural"
In objective terms there is no such possibility. There is a possibility that we cannot understand it, but merely by existing it is, in theory, understandable.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
On July 26 2010 04:50 treekiller wrote: Religions have evolved as well, though they will not admit it. Religions are not static; they add beliefs based on the culture around them and may even respond to scientific discovery (such as Galileo and the Catholic church). Evolution doesn't mean "progressively getting better", it means "becoming more adapted to the environment". For example, religious beliefs that discourage rational thought can be said to be more evolved, as such beliefs are more likely to lead to the preservation of the religion as a whole. Many atheists have this intelligent design view of religion; that all religion was created in a top-down manner by some mysterious cabal to control humanity. While individuals have certainly used religion for there own ends, there are larger evolutionary forces at work outside the control of any individual or group (or God). This can also explain the similarity of religions that had no previous contacts. Properties will emerge as they are naturally selected. Beliefs that are not falsifiable, separation from outsiders, concentration in a clerical elite, etc. would tend to naturally come about. It it true that both science and religion face uncertainty. Were they diverge is science seeks to find methods to quantify this uncertainty, make assumptions as simple and as self-apparent as possible when using deductive reasoning and to have a system for replication and minimizing errors when using inductive reasoning. So called "leap of faith" often denies and attempts to side-step this uncertainty. Both science and religion will hold beliefs of which no one can be certain. That is not where they converge; that is where they diverge.
This was well written but I disagree that most atheists believe all religion was created in a top down manner by the elite to control humanity. Of the 20% that don't believe in god I think most of them give little thought to how it was created. Of the 2.5% that would proclaim themselves atheists I think most of them would believe it was more of an evolutionary process. Also a lot of the similarity in major religions like the number 12 and virgin births seemed to have begun in Egypt. There is a movie Zeitgeist that while probably biased gave a large number of similarities major religions shared since the beginning that did not evolve.
LOL. the purpose of life is to figure out how to balance terrans OP bio. good is protoss. evil is zerg. obviously. and wisdom is learning how to transfer from a 4 gate into robo seamlessly. once you all realize this. you will prevail xD
On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote: There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable.
We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural.
Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities.
I don't think that you're using "supernatural" to mean the same thing as most people would. If "supernatural" just means "not yet understood", then it's a useless label; you can't ever test whether something's supernatural or not, and you might as well just say "not yet understood." Few people would say that things change from supernatural to natural as we figure them out.
Most people say "supernatural" when they mean "can't be understood", and they have some oddball reason in mind about the limits of reason or God or miracles why they think it can't be understood.
You guys should cite references when you're talking about whether science is "a belief", because it's not a big mystery problem*; it's been dealt with extensively first by Hume in the 1700s and more recently by Karl Popper. I agree with Popper's conclusion that although science is not logically justifiable, it's rational to believe in the predictive power of science, since it consists of the most easily falsifiable propositions about the world.
*It's often referred to as the "problem of induction", i.e. is induction justified, which is equivalent to asking, should we believe that there are rules about the world that will continue to hold in the future? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe.
But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it?
Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever."
Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote: Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe.
But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it?
Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever."
Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.*
If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural?
I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them.
* Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural."
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote: Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
User was banned for this post.
WTF???? Why???
Flamebait, trolling? If you look at his post history, pretty much every post in a non-Starcraft thread is just nonsense.
The goal of life is to defeat the untermensch within thyself and thus attain attunement with the trancendental principles of power and being... or something along those lines Been studying theoretical philosophy at the uni for a year now, will probably take some more courses after doing literature next semester.
On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote: Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe.
But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it?
Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever."
Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.*
If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural?
I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them.
* Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural."
OK, I see, I see.
My challenge to that would be, what about the fact that our reach in terms of what we have observed is quite small (to the point of insignificance) compared to what exists in the universe? So our falsification has only accounted for a completely insignificant array of new discoveries. Statistically speaking, our sampling of observations is entirely locally biased as well (in time and space). So I would claim our ability to falsify that theory is to a completely insignificant extent.
I'm not sure what the implications are as to: would it be possible for us to eventually experience the universe to a significant extent, and how that would affect the discussion.
On July 26 2010 22:33 ZapRoffo wrote: Hmm, time to go read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/. But just from your characterization of Popper's response, it seems like I can agree that it's rational for any given scientific fact about the universe to believe in the validity of induction because it has been refined continuously through being falsifiable, but that just the fact that it is falsifiable doesn't say anything about the possibility that it holds true for every single fact about the universe.
But the fact that he says it's not logically justifiable is basically what I'm claiming isn't it?
Oh and by supernatural I did mean "not able to be explained ever."
Man I remember why I hated studying philosophy in school, I hate reading about theories people have come up with, the only time it's tolerable is if I thought of something similar and I want to see how what I thought of fits into established thinking.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "scientific fact?" We're not usually discussing individual facts -- rather, we're discussing theories, which must be consistent with all past facts and claim to predict (in their domain) all future facts. When we're talking about physics, those theories are extremely broad; the standard-model-plus-general-relativity claims to explain more or less everything, everywhere, at every point in time, with few exceptions. Since our theory makes very precise predictions that are very carefully tested, and by Popper's thesis (which he justifies in great boring detail) that we should rationally prefer to believe the most predictive, most easily falsifiable theories, it's reasonable to believe in it until we know better; and that implies that we do think it holds true for every fact about the universe. It has so far.*
If we believe a theory but we don't think the theory will hold true for something we find tomorrow, then it's meaningless to say we believe it, unless you can say exactly what you think it does and doesn't apply to, and why. Do you have particular things that you would like to present as being supernatural?
I like philosophy because I have come to realize that there have been some folks in the past quite smarter than me who have worked for a long time thinking precisely about many interesting things, so I'm happy to start out by listening to them.
* Disregarding, for the moment, the few cases where the standard model breaks down, e.g. at the very beginning; I doubt these are relevant to what you have in mind as "supernatural."
OK, I see, I see.
My challenge to that would be, what about the fact that our reach in terms of what we have observed is quite small (to the point of insignificance) compared to what exists in the universe? So our falsification has only accounted for a completely insignificant array of new discoveries. Statistically speaking, our sampling of observations is entirely locally biased as well (in time and space). So I would claim our ability to falsify that theory is to a completely insignificant extent.
I'm not sure what the implications are as to: would it be possible for us to eventually experience the universe to a significant extent, and how that would affect the discussion.
That's a good question. I'll think about how to justify that and see if I can compose a satisfying response.
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
User was banned for this post.
WTF???? Why???
Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still...
On July 27 2010 04:55 UFO wrote: Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still...
Suppose that every time he posted, he just mashed the keyboard for two paragraphs and then hit post, without actually forming any words. Should you ban him then? Because that's exactly what he did, except instead of creating each word out of randomly selected, meaningless letters, he created every sentence out of randomly selected, meaningless words.
On July 27 2010 04:55 UFO wrote: Yeah, I don`t think he should be banned, thats too harsh imo. Maybe he didn`t know what he was talking about but still...
Suppose that every time he posted, he just mashed the keyboard for two paragraphs and then hit post, without actually forming any words. Should you ban him then? Because that's exactly what he did, except instead of creating each word out of randomly selected, meaningless letters, he created every sentence out of randomly selected, meaningless words.
maybe he has a harder time communicating cause hes an alien. you ever think of that??
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time.
Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics.
Are you ever going to make an actual argument?
Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness.
Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe.
If you have a Hotmail account, but fail to log into it for three months (or whatever period it is before it shuts down), then someone else registers that e-mail address - will they get all your old contacts from your account on their MSN next time they sign in ('cos obviously all your mates will have your e-mail address in their MSN)?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
personally i feel its the ability to use your intelligence. and using it to simplify the complicated is very useful xD
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VlwP6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_57yKxcxP8nE/TDvGb0flRUI/AAAAAAAAAFk/DPfwCwaFQis/2010-03-29-Purpose-of-life.gif)
