|
On July 19 2010 17:52 RhaegarBeast wrote:
I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
This actually reminds me of something I've thought up before.
The scenario:
You put a newborn in a dark room, no sight possible. You plug his (we'll just say it's a he) ears. Basically, take away his senses. After 20 years you release him.
The question is:
What is the formula of his existence?
I'd say something around: Life form = DNA + Environment (He can still feel things ofcourse, rather not but that would make it unrealistic)
What is the formula of any person around these forums?
Life form = DNA + Environment + how you were raised + manipulation from the media + etc.
So which of those two is more of a 'pure' life form and thus more (Himself)
Like the situation sketched by RhaegerBeast, I'd say the person would get accommodated to the 'torture' from staying in the jail.
It's all about how the mind is manipulated. Pain can be positive as long as the mind is manipulated enough or perhaps doesn't know any better.
|
Scary questions. I'd rather they not be asked, let alone answered. Let's just be friends instead, please.
|
On July 23 2010 08:52 RhaegarBeast wrote:
Scary questions. I'd rather they not be asked, let alone answered. Let's just be friends instead, please.
Since when is there a taboo on asking questions and thinking about the answers. 
Isn't that the sole purpose of philosophy?
|
Questions tend to become experiments. Let's turn the prison into Disney World instead.
The goal of philosophy is to realize what you should have done with your life instead. I'm getting to it slowly..
|
On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote:
Questions tend to become experiments. Let's turn the prison into Disney World instead.
So the prisoner is being tormented in Disney World instead of a 6x6 cell and there's a secret lever in Disney World that will allow you to kill someone so that you can leave the torment of Disney World? Assuming that being in Disney World is equal torment to the prison you've suggested, what's the practical difference in changing the name of your prison? Otherwise, if you are no longer suggesting that being eternally tormented is part of the given scenario when you change the prison to Disney World, how does it relate at all to the original OP? The problem either remains exactly the same or ends up bearing absolutely no relation to your original scenario. Another example of you attempting to shroud the simplicity of your initial scenario in meaningless extra data...
On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote:
The goal of philosophy is to realize what you should have done with your life instead.
Wrong again, sir... I suggest you go back and take Philosophy 101 over again if this is what you believe the purpose or goal of philosophy to be.
|
Philosophy is personal. My answer is - submit to the prison and work with it to make it a better place for all the prisoners and their guards. Your answer will sadly, but inevitably differ at least a little bit, as you are not me. It is a good question whether I'm actually helping by making people think about that. It's just my wish that we somehow found a solution together and not every man for himself.
And yes, it seems that I'm contradicting myself, but together and every man for himself are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
|
On July 23 2010 09:32 RhaegarBeast wrote:
Philosophy is personal. My answer is - submit to the prison and work with it to make it a better place for all the prisoners and their guards. Your answer will sadly, but inevitably differ at least a little bit, as you are not me. It is a good question whether I'm actually helping by making people think about that. It's just my wish that we somehow found a solution together and not every man for himself.
And somehow you couldn't come up with this by watching just about any Disney movie or any number of fables or stories in the world with a similar message?
If that's the point you wanted to get across (cooperation instead of competition), you could've just opened a discussion about Nash's equilibrium and you wouldn't have gotten half of the criticism...
I feel like you had good intentions with opening the discussion, but you didn't have the ability to hit a lot of the key points that should have been addressed if you did indeed mean for this to be a philosophical discussion as opposed to a game theory discussion.
At the risk of oversimplifying (neither of these subjects are really simple), in the given scenario, the "What would you do?" part of it is essentially game theory. You're taking your ideal objective, exploring options, and weighing those various options to come up with what you believe to be the best solution in the given scenario. The philosophical part would generally address the question of why your ideal objective is indeed ideal. In your case, I would ask, why is the other prisoner important? If it is as you state and he's a mere shell of a man, completely ignorant of the world outside, then why is it important at all that he remain alive? Do you believe that human life in and of itself holds some sort of intrinsic value that should be preserved? You also said you'd stay and try to make the prison a better place, but what does that mean and why is your vision for a "better place" actually any better?
|
This is not a math problem.I know enough of game theory to see that it's useless here. The reason is that no matter how you exploit the system, you open yourself to be exploited at the same rate in some other direction. You could try to play optimal, but that's just being dead. You cannot create something out of nothing, so the question is not how to win the most, as the net result is always zero. The question becomes - What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?
I make points in hope that someone else would acknowledge them or at least find them intriguing. It's getting quite obvious that most of you live in quite a different prison than I do.
|
On July 23 2010 09:57 RhaegarBeast wrote:
This is not a math problem.I know enough of game theory to see that it's useless here. The reason is that no matter how you exploit the system, you open yourself to be exploited at the same rate in some other direction. You could try to play optimal, but that's just being dead. You cannot create something out of nothing, so the question is not how to win the most, as the net result is always zero. The question becomes - What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?
I make points in hope that someone else would acknowledge them or at least find them intriguing. It's getting quite obvious that most of you live in quite a different prison than I do.
By failing to turn it into a philosophical discussion, you essentially HAVE made it a mere math problem. The question of "What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?" isn't a philosophical one. Philosophy would ask, "WHY is this something you want to create for yourself?" Philosophy is not about problem solving. It's about coming to an understanding about yourself and the world, which serves as the basis for problem solving. Philosophy and game theory go hand in hand because your philosophy and values determine the values you assign to different scenarios and objectives in a game theory problem. Your entire thread loses sight of the philosophical end of the problem and instead assumes a certain circumstance to be a desirable one (mutual survival) when this does not necessarily have to be the case depending on one's philosophy.
Despite all of your seemingly fancy statements, you continue to miss the point over and over again and you are so caught up in yourself and your belief in your own "brilliance" that you're completely blind to this simple fact. Get over yourself for a few minutes and actually read through the thread to see if this is, indeed, a philosophical discussion at all at this point. Cryptic statements like your may hear in Chinese Kung Fu movies or the average Japanese anime don't lend any real substance to a discussion nor do they make what you're saying some sort of higher philosophical concept despite what all this media may tell you. Stop trying to sound like Buddha for a bit and come back down to earth with the rest of us so that we can actually have a real discussion. Either that or stop posting and just let this thread die since it's going nowhere anyway.
All you seem to be doing is throwing out statements or suggestions and completely failing to build on them. The Disney World thing is a clear example. So what if the prison IS Disney World? What does that change and why does it matter? If that's the route we're going down, I'll ask "What if the prison is heaven?" Oh, that's so deep and philosophical. I'm going to go make a cup of jasmine tea to reward myself for being so incredibly thoughtful.
|
You're so fucking deluded that you're making me sick.
|
On July 23 2010 10:20 RhaegarBeast wrote:
You're so fucking deluded that you're making me sick.
Care to elaborate? Or are you just going to continue the same pattern of saying stuff without explaining anything. Sure, I'm being a bit of an ass at this point, but "deluded"? What part of what I said was delusional?
|
I'd press the damn lever and set myself free.
Why would I give a d4m fak about what happends to the other guy? Heck how do I know there is EVEN another guy there?
F it, I'm out, I carry on with life.
|
On July 23 2010 10:25 virgozero wrote:
Why would I give a d4m fak about what happends to the other guy?
Why, indeed...
(See, RhaegarBeast? I can do it too. Are you proud of me?) 
|
You've learned how to type, but not how to read. Get a clue, please.
|
I don't understand how RhaegarBeast figures out which posts to agree with and which to disagree with. Is he just flipping a coin?
Let's turn the coin into Disney World instead.
|
You know nothing. I agree, though. <3
|
On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote:
The goal of philosophy is to realize what you should have done with your life instead.
Wrong again, sir... I suggest you go back and take Philosophy 101 over again if this is what you believe the purpose or goal of philosophy to be.
And your wrong too, if you want to truley learn philosophy.
You dont take a course.
YOU THINK.
Did Rene Descarte take a course on metaphysics when he came up with the Cartesian dualism?
And the goal of philosophy is simple, to realize. it doesn't have to be some emotional shiz like OMG MY LIFE SUX,PHILOSOPHY WILL SHOW ME ZE PATH !
-.- Philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge AKA realization through logic and reaosn.
|
On July 23 2010 10:42 RhaegarBeast wrote:
You've learned how to type, but not how to read. Get a clue, please.
I've read every single word you've written on this thread and my words have been a direct response to your posts. How much of what I wrote have you actually read and thought about? Furthermore, how much have you actually responded to? It's fine if you disagree with me, but the fact that you've failed to respond to the vast majority of questions I asked simply proves to me that you're not interested in all in any real discussion at all. I've posed several relatively simple questions to you in the past few posts. You've responded to none of them.
Instead you choose to call me "delusional" and accuse me of having an inability to read. Maybe you should consider the fact that I'm not alone in my criticism of you or your scenario. Plenty of others throughout the thread have expressed similar views or opinions. Usually when that many people are telling you that something's wrong, it's worth entertaining the idea that something may indeed be wrong.
On July 23 2010 10:48 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote:
The goal of philosophy is to realize what you should have done with your life instead. Show nested quote +
Wrong again, sir... I suggest you go back and take Philosophy 101 over again if this is what you believe the purpose or goal of philosophy to be.
And your wrong too, if you want to truley learn philosophy. You dont take a course. YOU THINK. Did Rene Descarte take a course on metaphysics when he came up with the Cartesian dualism? And the goal of philosophy is simple, to realize. it doesn't have to be some emotional shiz like OMG MY LIFE SUX,PHILOSOPHY WILL SHOW ME ZE PATH ! -.- Philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge AKA realization through logic and reaosn.
Where did I say that philosophy is truly learned through a course? My point was that if he's as off base about what philosophy is, he should go take a basic course before speaking on the matter. Philosophy courses will not teach you everything you need to know, but frankly, you're a fool if you don't believe that they hold value in educating people on the subject. What's the point of sitting there and thinking if you have no idea HOW to think? While people like Socrates and Descarte may not have taken a formal course on the subject, they learned from studying other thinkers. It's not as if these people just sat down one day and formed a world view without any prior education.
Just as science is built on the shoulders of our forefathers, philosophy is too. Otherwise, we'd all just be sitting down reinventing the wheel over and over again. It's important to study not only contemporary thought, but philosophy as it has evolved throughout history. There's much to learn from understanding how our predecessors thought and why they thought that way. This is all besides the fact that when you enter a philosophical discussion, there needs to be some sort of common academic ground on which to form a discussion. Philosophy classes (as with a class in any subject) are an invaluable tool for creating a relatively standard ground to meet on.
By the way, what would you know about Descarte if you didn't study anything about him? Education is important...
|
You don't give a shit about my opinion and I don't give a shit about yours. Alright?
The only standard people need is to respect each others differences and find the truth for themselves. And that's just.. you know.. my opinion.
To read philosophy is to acquaint yourself with its history and with the opinions of famous people. It's good I guess, but I hate when people point to "authorities" in an open debate. I myself find many renowned philosophers to be criminally insane. (Nietzsche anyone?)
|
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote:
You don't give a shit about my opinion and I don't give a shit about yours. Alright?
There's a difference between expressing the fact that I disagree with your view and the way you're presenting them and not "giving a shit" about your opinion. If I didn't care at all about what you had to say, I wouldn't be wasting my time typing all this. I find it a bit funny that you assume that I don't care about what you have to say just because I don't agree with it or find you to be in error. Frankly, I was hoping your next post would actually be a real response, but again, I was disappointed.
But then again, you've made your position quite clear in this post that you don't give a shit about what I have to say and as such, I will assume that you probably don't have any intention of responding to it. When you actually want to speak like an adult rather than whine about people not seeing things your way, maybe I'll post again. Until, then, however, I'll leave this thread to you so you can continue you "discussion" with only people that agree with you even though I don't see how that is any real discussion at all.
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote:
The only standard people need is to respect each others differences and find the truth for themselves. And that's just.. you know.. my opinion.
I agree that respecting differences is important, but when you enter a discussion, it's important to both give and take. Discussion is dialogue. If you're refusing to respond to people who disagree with you with a "Let's agree to disagree." attitude and refuse to take anything from the discussion, then what's the point? It's not a discussion, then. It's a lecture. I don't know how many philosophical discussions or debates you've been in, but questioning the validity or relevance of a view is a pretty common thing. If the notion that someone might not believe your opinion or the manner in which you expressed it is a valid one makes you uncomfortable or upset, maybe you shouldn't get involved in such discussions...
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote:To read philosophy is to acquaint yourself with its history and with the opinions of famous people. It's good I guess, but I hate when people point to "authorities" in an open debate. I myself find many renowned philosophers to be criminally insane. (Nietzsche anyone?)
Those people are famous because their views were instrumental in shaping the way we see the world today. When people bring them up, it's usually to refer to the pattern of thought or belief that they're associated with. It's far easier to mention Socrates than actually have to explain everything that you would learn about him or his pattern of thought. While I agree that famous people aren't necessarily the ultimate authority, they can play an important role in discussion.
And Nietzsche did actually go insane in the end btw...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
