/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/
|
|
|
/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/ |
 | Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) | |
| Posted By: Yossarian | Date: 4/11/04 2:55 p.m. |
| In Response To: Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) (Forrest of B.org) Same dealy about spelling and grammar. It is the weekend and I don't have to care about stuff like that. : Which is why I have that clause about deduction from prior experience. I can
That's my point exactly. Logically, I can comprehend the fallacy of assuming the truth of anything when an assumption is involved. However, life rarely plays out as simple as the pure marble logic that we keep in the mushy matter in our skulls. Although it's logically "safe" to assume the negative, it is practically impossible to employ that logic in any type of reality. So the "safer" alternative is to be logically agnostic, to not make a logical judgement until the rule is tested. Even then, logical rules that exist in reality are not unbreakable, they can be, are, and sometimes must be revised. : That statement seems circular somehow but I'm too tired to verify that. Everything a person CAN know *is* everything to that person, not *your* everything. Every thing that I think about in my life...that is my "every thing", and I have thought about it. Ergo, I HAVE thought about everything. If there is something you think about in your life that I have not, then it is not considered in *my* understanding of everything, and is therefore irrelevant. All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be... : That's what this whole first part is about... how to best figure out between
: I'm operating on the premise that the universe itself can be considered an
Why? Reality only has informational aspects when human minds apply them. Would reality exist without human beings? Your reality cannot exist without you, in fact, it won't. Do you think that reality operates according to logical rules? Or are the rules simple connections made by your mind? Is the reality you see in your conscious mind the reality you think you see, or just the reality your brain gives your mind access to? Is reality mathematical? If we continue under the assumption that each one person has his or her own reality, then all of this is pointless. YOUR reality can be representated as a set of information. YOUR reality has these limitations. By extension, mine does not have to. : And
But the "set" is dependent on you, and is a creation of your brain, formed by incoming stimuli. Are you both outside of and inside the set? Which is bigger? You, or the concept of your reality? : Wrong. The result is, I do not know whether or not I can drive the Ford
How do you guage probability? Percentage? I simply don't think that's realistic. Again, all you're doing here is taking an agnostic position until a very frail logical rule can be validated, which is actually the only sane thing to do in any situation, though, again, not very practical. : This is the same argument that an agnostic would make about God. With all the
And this is where both theists and atheists take refuge in Faith. You can search the entire universe, a theist to your left and an atheist to your right, and once all is said and done, the theist will say he saw God everywhere and the atheist will say he saw god nowhere, you will say that now that all has been seen and you still lack proof of god you doubt his existence. I'd merely say that god is irrelevant, and whether or not he exists is a minor detail. Proof is dangerous to believers everywhere, theists or other. Proof is the natural antidote to faith. Believers cannot afford to prove their doctrines. Why? Because with proof the doctrine becomes fact, there is no mysticism, there is no chance, there is no leap of faith that makes one a true believer. The romanticism is gone. There is no trial. Believers need non-believers and vice-versa. There's your balance. Again, agnostics take the logical route by stating the only "truth" (nothing is proven) as do nihilists (anything known is irrelevant or insubstatial and cannot be proven), which is not nearly as exciting as taking an actual stand. : To people who have actually experienced some proof of God's existance or what
I agree. So many of the so-called "religious" experiences people have are the result of the mere inner workings of their minds. Such as the phenonmenon that started this thread. Mystical? Religious? Spriritual? No. Firing neurons. Regardless of how it is interpreted, the fact is that the experience is limited to that little volume of space inside our primate skulls. Such experiences cannot be easily shared, though there are countless examples of mass hallucinations, and mass hysteria. Take for example voodoo rituals, or whenever a million people congregrate every time someone sees the virgin Mary in a tree stump or tortilla. Again, is this god or the devil at work? I tend to think not. It's just social psychology. Again, the light of science shines deep into the darkness of the human reality, lo, we are saved. : But how do you define "benefit"? That's really what it comes down
: I think our point of contention here comes down to you taking a personal,
Are you trying to objectively define what would be best, or are you trying to objectively define what you THINK would be best? The major problem with this is that you are not the authority to dictate what is morally correct and what is not; I know you're not trying to come down from the mount with stone slabs or anything, but even the premise of morality or what it may or may not be is so ridiculously subjective so as to make any definite statement about it moot. And what is the best for the longest really the best? What about complacency? People start taking this "good" thing for granted, and it no longer becomes good. The loss of it can have catastrophic effects (electricity, for instance). What if, after some decades or centuries, humanity has forgotten how to live without it? And suddenly it is gone, and chaos ensues. Can we justify the "moral good" of its inroduction and the subsequent damage this thing has eventually caused? No. Before making any moral assumption we must assume the negative. A logical conclusion, nay, THE logical conclusion is to assume that this -concept, phenomenon, whatever- will have a net NEGATIVE moral effect. After all, assuming in the positive is a logical fallacy, right? However, as humans, we are not satisfied by this, so we test it. We apply it, we take science and turn it into techonology, and it is determined to be good not by always by the indivdual, but by the more powerful social institutions, and is thusly reinforced by media. Are nuclear weapons moral? That is another can of worms, but it is worth mentioning. Can we justify ensuring a relative peace by nearly guarateeing our total annihilation? Is it moral? Who's to say? Are nuclear weapons better, the more we have and the longer we have them; more targets? : It's exactly questions like this that made me throw in the time clause. Will
But not necessarily. Again, there are too many variables to allow for the utterance of a definite statement. Is moderation the safe answer? Yes. It's the agnostic thing to do, and because it is such, it is inherently wrong. It is also inherently not wrong. : Knowledge: This one is actually tricky and I'm considering removing it,
Of course, this works both ways. Tried to slip one by me, eh? ;) I think this alludes to the fact that true altruism does not exist (IMHO). I think I am safe in saying that human history shows just as many if not more examples of knowledge being used in immoral ways as it is in moral. I personally believe that it is foolish to assume that a person will apply knowledge in any other morality than his or her own. If this application of knowledge DOES benefit others, it is only because the fact of doing so benefits the individual. : Variety: Easy one - monoculture crops. I had others too but I'm about to pass
I agree that variety is important, where would we be without it? Evolution depends on variety, and that goes without saying. However, here also I believe it is necessary to include a clause stating that variety is not always a good. thing. There is also necessity and beauty in consistency. Here again the vague scent of balance. : Balance: Way too many to name, but generally, look at any axis, and the two
Again, I can agree. But balance need not be 50/50. I do not think there is anything that one can give as perfectly balanced. Balance exists, or we think it exists (within our actual realities) only to a degree. There can be balances of high degrees that last for billions fo years, and balances that last for billionths of a second. Variety in balance, balance in variety. There is no black and white, just varying degrees of grey, as I see it. : I have no intention of practially applying this, except as a measure in my
It's all good dawg. If I tried this I'd be at it all day and not come out with one coherent paragraph. I'm only good at trying to tear down other people's philosophies, not reinforce my own. Is this a bad thing? No, I think it is very moral. Yossarian
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| Replies: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12. |