|
Hey teamliquid! Haven't posted in a few years, so I don't imagine anyone will remember me. Years ago, I used to have some wonderful philosophical discussions on the teamliquid boards, and I would love to experience that again. Lately, I've been thinking almost endlessly about social structures, and our basic understanding of what "we" are, and what kind of universe we inhabit, and how a faulty conception has lead to a unnecessarily horrible social structure.
I feel my ideas are a rather disjointed mess at the moment, and so I'm going to sit down and attempt to get the majority of them down, and hopefully have some constructive criticisms and objections to my ideas, and perhaps hear some ideas on how to expand them. To give fair warning, this might get extremely long, I don't know exactly what ideas I will run in to, but I absolutely need to get these ideas on paper, I think that is the only way to release my mind from them!
*Note - My degree is in sociology, and this post will mainly be discussing philosophy and modern physics (and a bit of metaphysics, but you don't need to take that part too seriously), two areas that I am only an amateur (although I did minor in philosophy). If I make mistakes in my explanations please correct me!
At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis.
The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers.
A few years ago, a young boy made headlines after word began to spread that he was meditating for previously unthinkable amounts of time. Ram Bahadur Bomjon, or “Buddha boy” as his followers call him, has been filmed by both Discovery and BBC film crews for over 96 hours. In both cases he spent the entirety of the filming session almost motionless, seeming to defy modern science by remaining alive. While the exact time he spends between drinking and eating is heavily debated, the fact that he is doing something extraordinary is without question.
Upon request, he addressed his followers with a message. The message of his speech was one of unity, and of compassion. There was visible strain on his face when attempting to explain the ideas of oneness, as the understanding and the means he used reached it is difficult to explain in words. His message was primarily about the mistreatment we perpetuate of each other. He seemed to make no distinction between human well being, and the well being of animals, perhaps even focusing more on the injustices of animal mistreatmrent.
From these examples, I feel it isn't an extraordinary extrapolation to suggest a correlation between the universal oneness that these men experience, and the teachings that the only sin is ignorance. After all, if we are all one universal entity, by harming others you are in fact harming yourself, and I believe these actions do take a toll on the happiness of the individual. While this theory clearly falls short of what we might consider scientifically valid (especially in regards to “Buddha Boy,” and I would say that chances are high it is at least exaggerated if not a complete hoax), I believe that the message of these men is worth exploring further.
Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside, I think Socrates still has a rather important argument if we consider it from the perspective of determinism. Once the domain of philosophy alone, science now has the tools at it's disposal to join in on the free will debate. Before we go further, I think it's important to briefly analyze the potential structures of the universe we are discussing in relation to free will.
I see time as being crucial to understanding the deterministic properties of the universe. If we rewind time and play a single moment over and over, would the outcome change as we go back and replay the event? If not, it is safe to say that we are determined to make that choice. If there is variation in our actions, or even in the event's around us, we can safely say we are not determined. To analyze the nature of determinism is to analyze the nature of the universe. We know we live in a world with 3 dimensions we are aware of physically, and within this 3 dimensional world there exists an arrow of time, shown to us through our lived experience, but also though the nature of the universal “burn out” that results from energy being used, known as entropy. This has been coined the “arrow of time” by physicists.
If we imagine the ability to view the universe from 4 dimensions (all 3 of our physical dimensions plus time) we could imagine the universe as a 4 dimensional statue. If we assume determinism to be true, we see that the universe is a fixed entity, with one path for time to follow, and no matter how many times we rewind the universal tape, the same story plays over and over.
Now let's think about the potential that quantum mechanics introduces to our 4 dimensional universe. While the possibility remains that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the inherent randomness within the mathematics of quantum mechanics is in fact reconcilable with our previous notions of a deterministic universe, either through lack of understanding of the complexities behind quantum mechanical mathematics, or perhaps by the influence of our actions and observations changing the result, showing us an illusion of random occurrence that is in fact determined, all we can do for now is go with the understanding that we have currently, and that is that we can't predict the behavior of an electron with certainty, but instead only make a calculation on the probability it will do certain things.
We can predict the probability that a particle will behave in a certain way, but we can never predict it with exact accuracy, unless we are actively observing it (this seems to take the randomness away for whatever reason). Under this quantum mechanical universe, the determinism of the past, present, and future is in a state of constant change. If we attempt to imagine this as a 4 dimensional universe, we see the same 4 dimensional statue, however it is in a constant state of change due to quantum variation.
Now let us imagine a universe where the inherent principles of string theory are correct. Not only does this complicate things in the number of dimensions that exist (as most theories postulate the existence of 11 dimensions), but we also introduce the potentiality of an infinite number of alternate universes. Assuming we stay with the understandable 4 dimensions, we might see an infinite number of potential 4 dimensional universes, each with their own variation on the quantum level. Perhaps there exists a solid 4 dimensional statue for each possible quantum variance. While these possibilities might move us past the idea of a deterministic universe, if we are truly seeking evidence of free will, quantum variation is not exactly what we mean. Slight variations on the mathematics that govern our choices does not introduce the feeling of us being free, but rather being more controlled than ever, destined in a sense to the random variation of our own universes set of quantum fluctuation. This mean's that if in one universe we chose to get off the couch and start a workout program, and in one universe we continued watching and wasted away our lives potential, it is no fault of our own, but simply the random variation within quantum mechanics.
The only way around this that I see is to think of ourselves as somehow beyond the rules of the universe, and to think of our brains as beyond the mathematics that govern all else. This is an idea that has been suggested by philosophers such as Aristotle or Descartes, who postulated that we are an immaterial entity attached to a physical body, and while the body is bound by the laws of physics, the “essence” of what we are remains the only known “uncaused causer” in an otherwise material universe of mechanical causation (although it seems to me that the objective assumption is that we are nothing beyond our bodies and as such are still bound by the rules of the universe). It seems reasonable to me to believe that Descartes is searching for what he would like to be the case, rather than what is, similar to his attempted proofs at the existence of god.
So if Descartes is incorrect, we seem to be at least primarily determined by the whims of the mechanical properties of the universe. If he is correct, and we truly do have some type of immaterial soul, it is clear that our “human” needs often trump the rational side that most people would identify as “us” quite heavily. In other words, our innate instinctual drives play far more of a role in determining our choices than the “us” we identify with. To use Daniel Khaneman's idea of System 1 and System 2 thinking, we could see our system 1 as our “mechanical” functions that our material bodies give us, in other words, our animalistic humanness. Our system 2 on the other hand could be seen as the immaterial self that Descartes suggested. However, most of our day to day functions and choices are determined almost entirely by our system 1, without any conscious input from our system 2 whatsoever. With this view in mind, some neuroscientists believe we are simply a bundle of sensory inputs, processes, and drives that determine our actions, and the only control we have is to determine what we focus our attention on at any given time. Neurobiology is increasingly showing us that our brains are simply 'meat computers' programed by our genes and experiences to convert various inputs we experience, into a predetermined output.
This seems to lead us to the idea that the “us” we believe to exist is simply an illusion created by the various sensory inputs and processes that go on inside our brain, giving us the experience of being a thinking, living thing. Regardless of the nature of the universe, it seems that free will is, at least majorly, an illusion. Most people find this idea repulsive, due to the strength of the illusion of free will. Because of this, it could be quite some time before the general population accepts that we are all primarily determined by our past experiences, and current situations.
While this might seem like a depressing idea to some, I see it as empowering. By understanding the rules that govern our behavior we can begin to take advantage of them. In Thomas Nagel's s brief summary of philosophy 'What does it all mean?' he brings up an important idea when he says: “Besides not being able sensibly to blame yourself for having had cake [assuming you chose it over salad], you probably wouldn’t be able sensibly to blame anyone at all for doing something bad, or praise them for doing something good. If it was determined in advance that they would do it, it was inevitable: they couldn’t have done anything else, given the circumstances as they were.”
From this, we see that when someone performs an evil action, it isn't because he is a terrible person, instead he was simply making an action based on his previous life experiences and whatever current conditions influenced him at the time of his action.
I would argue that our world view becomes much better if we adopt this attitude when analyzing the behavior of others. This causes us to no longer get angry with people for their actions, but to want to promote positive behavior. This comes into play when we consider the differences between a penal system designed for punishment, and one designed for rehabilitation. By influencing others we are changing their future behavior. No different than if we punish the dog for peeing on the rug. We don't hold the dog accountable, but we also want a future that doesn't include the dog peeing on the rug. Even in our own lives, this is a powerful idea to adopt, as the choices and positions we make for ourselves now have strong influence in the future.
Understanding our lack of control under certain circumstances allows us to place ourselves in positions that enable us to make better decisions. I would argue that the first step towards mastering your life is being aware that under certain circumstances, we make certain choices. It seems obvious to me that if we allow ourselves temptation it becomes much harder for us to avoid it. If this is due to a fundamental sense of determinism, or if we maintain a small fraction of free will, we can still be aware that we are weak. There is an idea within cognitive psychology that simply “willing” yourself to do something just doesn't work. There has been research done in this area, and the result of the research shows that if we want to control ourselves, we must place ourselves in the position to behave in the manner we wish ourselves to behave. Attempting to overcome our own temptation from will power alone is simply not an optimal method. I believe that from this, the question we must ask ourselves is not what we believe, but how we want to live.
So what are some potential arguments against his case? Kierkegaard said that Greek philosophy “was too happy, too naïve, too esthetic, too ironic, too witty—too sinful—to grasp that anyone could knowingly not do the good, or knowingly, knowing what is right, do wrong.”
While he brings up a valid argument, I wonder how Kierkegaard would respond to the notion that if you are causing harm to others you are actually harming yourself in the process. For example, if someone knows he is harming someone by stealing another man's wallet, but knowingly does it anyway, this might seem to be an exception to Socrates idea, and give support to Kierkegaard. However, I would make the argument that the man stealing the wallet is actually hurting himself as well, and while the material items he will purchase with the money might make him happy in the short term, he will be a happier person in the long run if he avoids causing harm to others. His desire to steal was rooted in the ignorance of what will truly make him happy, not the ignorance of the results of his actions.
However, while education is important in the reforming of people and their ideals, we also must hold people accountable for negative actions. Going back to the idea of the dog peeing on the rug, we decided that to shape the future in the manner we wish it to be, we would punish the dog for his negative actions. It is important to note that shaping behavior does not have to be done through negative means, and it has been shown that positive sanctions work better, and have a more significant long term affect than negative sanctions. Looking again at our penal system with the information we have established, we see that our current method of punishment without attempt at changing a persons future behavior is simply absurd, and has lead to a huge atmosphere of criminal behavior among large segments of the population. Instead of punishing people for making poor choices, we need to understand why they made these choices, and modify our social structures in a manner that will attempt to alleviate the environmental pressures that caused someone to commit a crime in the first place.
Regardless of if our actions are caused by free will or determinism, they still shape the future of the universe. If this is due to our sense of free will, or the actuality of it is irrelevant. If we accept this and place ourselves and others in positions to make the best possible choices, we allow ourselves (both as individuals, and as a society) to follow the best path. So while the universe may or may not be determined, due to our position in time, to us it feels as if we shape that universe with every choice we make, and indeed we do.
To return to the original message that Socrates, Buddha, Thoreau and Christ all share, we see a similar idea of happiness coming not from your own successes and pleasures, but from within. The message is that material goods do not bring us happiness or peace, but instead we find these things through good and just actions that lead us to an overall contentedness with ourselves. It would seem that the reason all of these teachers shared a similar message, is rooted in the idea that all wrongful actions are caused from a lack of understanding on what truly makes human beings happy. This flies in the face of our modern ideals that we accept within a capitalistic society, and this idea has been addressed in more modern times by Sociological theorists such Marx and Max Weber. I believe that if this idea becomes internalized by the majority of the population, we will see a drastic shift in the way we structure our society.
Jeez that took a long time to finally get to my point.
I really want to expand on the social implications of this, but I have been writing for two hours straight and need a break. If anyone actually made it this far, thank you for humoring me. I might write more on this later if there is any interest, I realize most people won't want to read such a long winded post.
|
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On May 04 2015 10:30 varsovie wrote:
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
This, moved.
|
i get mad at my medics when they don't follow my marines around... the real reason is probably garbage micro by me.
however, is this due to free will or determinism? 
wtf is this doing here?
|
On May 04 2015 10:30 varsovie wrote:
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
Oh, oops! Didn't realize two 'General' sections existed. Thanks for moving it.
|
You made one big mistake. Lack of free will is not empowering because even our decision-making is deterministic. You can't "take advantage" of the lack of free will, because that decision isn't "yours" to make. The way your brain works determines what decisions you make. There's no disembodied consciousness controlling your brain.
Basically what I'm saying is that even your thoughts are controlled by physical processes.
|
On May 04 2015 11:15 Millitron wrote:
You made one big mistake. Lack of free will is not empowering because even our decision-making is deterministic. You can't "take advantage" of the lack of free will, because that decision isn't "yours" to make. The way your brain works determines what decisions you make. There's no disembodied consciousness controlling your brain.
Basically what I'm saying is that even your thoughts are controlled by physical processes.
I completely agree that our thought processes are controlled as well. I am merely suggesting that the understanding of the deterministic nature of humans allows me to place myself in a better position to succeed, such as keeping myself away from negative influences. Of course, if we are determined, I was going to do this anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a positive influence in my life.
For example, I smoked weed daily for years, always thinking it was completely under my control to stop. I even told myself I would quit a few times, but I always ended up justifying a reason to smoke. Every time. When I came to the conclusion of how determined we are, I realized that the control was actually out of my hands, and the only way to not smoke was simply not have access to it. So, I kept it out of my house, and now I no longer smoke.
I'm also not completely sold on determinism, rather, I think a healthier approach is to attempt to understand the limiting factors that such a universe has, and apply them to your life, with the understanding that we are either completely, or mostly determined.
Having no free will does not take away from the illusion of it in any way, or the consequences of your choices that result.
|
I see Yokokano has a new rival.
|
No, sadly. This is pretty standard "I read some philosophy books on my won" boilerplate. I salute you, OP, for your tenacity. Better men have made the same mistakes as you. Never change.
|
At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20.
The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals.
+ Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside."
|
On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. Show nested quote +The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals. + Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside."
Great response, and you might be correct that I should leave the "oneness" out of the discussion. While I believe there is something there, I'm not even sure enough of what I think on the topic to really explain it to anyone. I do think my argument could be made purely from a deterministic perspective, and not include the spiritual side at all.
Do you think it would help my argument to remove that part entirely?
|
On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20.
While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails).
In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
|
From my personal experience I can attest to the fact that its much better to put yourself in a situation where it is very hard to do something than to use your willpower alone. I used to think it was silly that people couldn't simply choose what to do, I thought it was very weak minded, but the truth is we are all naturally weak minded in this way and its hard to resist various urges or cravings. In that sense it is empowering to 'use' determinism to help yourself.
But with respect to your main point about how people are only evil out of ignorance. First of all I'm not sure its universally valid because there could be people who are 'wired' wrong - i.e. psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. who may genuinely enjoy causing suffering to others. Its not immediately clear that they are simply in a deep state of ignorance; though it is still possible I don't think its obvious.
But besides those fringe cases, if you don't take the 'oneness' idea literally as a new age spiritual person might, I think you have to appeal to the existence of some kind of universally shared, 'objective' morality. Because only under that system would the wallet thief feel any remorse - again maybe its just a fringe case as above, but some thieves may actually get a thrill out of it and not regret it at all.
And even to the extent that they do feel remorse, it could be more than balanced out if there is a lot of good events that follow. For example a person who steals a large sum of money from a wealthy person, and consequently turns his life around with that and leads a very magnanimous, positive life. He will certainly feel bad assuming he has standard human morals, but the positives outweigh the negatives enough that stealing in that exception case would be considered a net good for that person; especially if we assume the alternative is that he remains destitute and dies broke and alone.
Most spiritualists would say if you steal from him you ultimately harm yourself - in this case, I can't see the harm you've done to yourself; maybe some moral concerns at most, but hardly enough to outweigh the benefits. In general the argument you made at the end of your post was a bit tenuous, but I can imagine you were pretty tired of typing at that point so I understand.
Anyway I do feel that ideally a system should be created where people aren't put in these absurd situations; i.e. that there is a social safety net etc. to help people before they reach this point. In that sense you could argue that evil is ultimately conquered at the institutional level, and that we have to consider all spheres of human influence when creating such unusual hypothetical events. In conclusion I guess its probably true at a very broad level, barring certain exceptional cases.
Also I don't think you necessarily need a 'oneness' philosophy to argue this, it could equally be viewed as the consequence of a utilitarian philosophy where people naturally try to maximize their happiness, which naturally requires that people cooperate and create a better system for all.
As a physics student I don't buy the idea that everything is fundamentally random. They said that Bell's inequality effectively proved the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that a particle has no clear position or momentum until its measured, after which it 'collapses' into a particular state), but the whole inequality relies on the principle of 'locality' or that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If one simply postulates the existence of extra dimensions, then information could easily travel 'faster' by effectively jumping through wormholes like in science fiction (remember, the sheet of paper representing spacetime, that you fold in two and jam a pencil through, representing the wormhole?). Then in that case the inequality is plausibly violated; photons of opposite spin travelling in opposite directions can influence each other when one is measured. It would be totally bizarre if it weren't the case; there is still no coherent explanation for how entanglement operates instantaneously across any distance in spacetime. So as far as I'm concerned the orthodox model has a pretty big hole in it and its hard to take seriously as it stands anyway.
Maybe another physicist can help me understand. I'm only finished third year 
|
On May 04 2015 12:24 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails). In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
Jesus claimed to be God; assuming you are OK with the parts of the Bible which give us Jesus' directly spoken teachings, you would have to accept that to be the case. Either he was a madman who thought he was God but was not, or he was actually God. If he was indeed God, then it follows that the rest of the Bible is also his teaching (given that he claimed to be God in front of the Israelites, as an Israelite, and did not claim to be any other God but their own). You cannot discard the majority of the Bible as not the teachings of Jesus and still claim that he was a great philosophical teacher. Either he is a madman and the Bible is false, or he is a great philosophical teacher and the Bible is true. (Or he's a lying philosophical teacher, in which case his integrity is in question and his teachings also doubtful).
|
On May 04 2015 11:48 ninazerg wrote:
I see Yokokano has a new rival.
At this rate everyone on TL will be highly educated in metasociophysics in no time and we'll see more educational literature pieces (blogs) so that more people from outside of TL can be educated.
Free education!
Because education is priceless.
Because education is liberation.
|
On May 04 2015 12:19 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals. + Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside." Great response, and you might be correct that I should leave the "oneness" out of the discussion. While I believe there is something there, I'm not even sure enough of what I think on the topic to really explain it to anyone. I do think my argument could be made purely from a deterministic perspective, and not include the spiritual side at all. Do you think it would help my argument to remove that part entirely? Insomuch as you already seem willing to leave it all behind aka flowery intro, but the meat is found later on.
On May 04 2015 12:24 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails). In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion. If you have a better source for his teaching than that book, you'll have to name it. Similar to all unsupported claims, it is very easy to pick your man (any man, really) and claim he was deeply misunderstood by modern scholarship and contemporary disciples. Sadly, like others, this goes deeply off topic and you're better off discussing your primary topic with that topic's interested parties. Even if your favored philosophers were counter-intuitively united in ethereal fashion, it does very little beyond serve as an intro or tie-in to your point.
|
These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory Never laughed so hard.
Ninazerg is starting to leave an impact...
|
In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
Yeah Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the mount) particularly the part about praying is how I imagine the difference between Christians and Christ's teachings.
I also agree ignorance is at the root of a lot if not all sin/evil, and I also think it's easy to extract that from Christ's teachings. Separately, Original sin is essentially a story about ignorance and our desire to understand.
I also don't think the commonality is inconsequential. Not sure how much it supports or ties into a multiverse, but it has social and philosophical significance.
|
the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't.
in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth.
tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves.
history is the proof and witness of it all.
|
I gave spare change to two guys discussing philosophy at school. It was an insult because I am a marketing major.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
