/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/
|
|
|
/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/ |
 | Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) | |
| Posted By: Forrest of B.org | Date: 4/10/04 10:27 p.m. |
| In Response To: Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) (Yossarian) : In a vacuum, then I'd agree with you, before my eyeballs explode and I die of
I had these thoughts at random eating dinner a few months ago. I felt maybe I should write them down. This thread somehow seemed relevant. The endpoints about balance being good is the main relevant point; all the discussion about reality is more a preface. : My other point here being that most always, assumptions aren't made in a
Which is why I have that clause about deduction from prior experience. I can say that I can PROBABLY drive a Ford Explorer, so long as it is an automatic, because I have a basic knowledge of common automatic vehicle controls. There could be something in a Ford Explorer that I don't know about that could totally throw that off, though. : Both of these statements are arguable. If I've experienced everything I can
That statement seems circular somehow but I'm too tired to verify that. : Also, what reality can be more accurate than the only one we know? Since it
That's what this whole first part is about... how to best figure out between our senses and our reason what is "actually" real. : I fail to grasp a couple of things in the preceding paragraph. First, what is
I'm operating on the premise that the universe itself can be considered an informational construct - not neccesarily that we are In The Matrix or any such, just that reality can be represented as a set of information. And because a set cannot contain a larger set than itself, the set of information that is "me" cannot contain the set of information which is "everything", because "everything" includes "me" plus a bunch of other stuff, and is therefore larger than me. : Let's go back to the analogy of you driving a Ford Explorer and living to
: 2. However, Foborg "cannot experientially disprove any such assertion
: 3. The result: Foborg can both neither drive nor not drive the Ford Explorer. Wrong. The result is, I do not know whether or not I can drive the Ford Explorer. I can PROBABLY drive it as per 1. Number 2 simply says you or I can't disprove, just sitting here, that I can drive it. If I actually get in it and discover that there's something that keeps me from driving it, then we know. But until then, we can only gauge probability, not fact. This is the same argument that an agnostic would make about God. With all the "probablies" in the world, theists cannot PROVE absolutely that God does exist. At the same time, atheists can never PROVE that he does NOT exist. What it comes down to is until we actually test the problem (search the entire universe for God, which we've already shown to be impossible, and I intend to illustrate further on in a later part of this), it's impossible to know for sure whether or not. Just that he probably does/doesn't exist. : Yeah, but when does this ever happen? Do we wait until the next
: It is the very malleability of reality that makes it so weak and is pimped
To people who have actually experienced some proof of God's existance or what not, and don't have counterexperience or reason to rule it out, I say all the power to ya. Believe in what you have sensed and reasoned. But unless you can share that same experience with me, and nothing in my head can rule it out, you're not going to be able to prove it to me. : Is it? Or does it cheapen happiness, and by extension, morality? I don't
But how do you define "benefit"? That's really what it comes down to. Yes, morality, and good, is what causes benefits. A personal moral structure, sure, may benefit you personally more. But a "better", or more moral, structure would be that which benefits more people, more often. I think our point of contention here comes down to you taking a personal, selfish, power-based view of morality - that is, what is good or bad is determined by whoever is in power, and I can agree that what people THINK is good or bad is determined by such - while I am trying my best to objectively define what would be best for the most, the longest. : The point being what? What if making more people happy is an immoral thing,
It's exactly questions like this that made me throw in the time clause. Will eating Big Macs for 40 years and being generally satisfied by them account for 20 years of horrible pain and suffering as that person's arteries clog and they wind up bed-ridden for the last miserable years of their life? Or would laying off the Big Macs cause such suffering, or lack of pleasure, during the person's long, healthy life that it's not even worth everything else that healthy life has to offer? It's a tradeoff. These are two extreme examples. The most, longest happiness will probably be found somewhere in the middle. : Okay, that's not my point here, my point it, is happiness the ultimate goal? : That's rather vague. Please give an example of all three of these in
Knowledge: This one is actually tricky and I'm considering removing it, because knowledge can also lead to knowledge of desires you otherwise might not know were unsatisfied. (The bane of many geeks in the world... ignorance is bliss). But in general, knowledge makes you more capable of getting the things that make you happy, and certain kinds of knowledge make it more likely that you will make others happy too. Variety: Easy one - monoculture crops. I had others too but I'm about to pass out here. Balance: Way too many to name, but generally, look at any axis, and the two extremes are clearly bad. The best solution is almost always in the middle. Too much of anything is bad. "In all things moderation." : I think you did a good job here of summing up your arguments yet my main
I have no intention of practially applying this, except as a measure in my own action. I just thought it and so I wrote it down. | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| Replies: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12. |