Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Starting point of a (my) philosophy.
    #5485313 - 04/06/06 01:06 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

And quite possibly a reiteration of several other people. However, I take a certain pride in the fact that all of these ideas, save for R?ne Descartes' masterful phrase, were my own long before I had heard the words "utilitarianism" or "determinism." I only hope this is, or can be, something other then the semi-mindless parroting of intelligences far superior to my own.

When you find any flaws, I request, destroy this piece until it is perfect.



Definitions:
d1. An object or concept is objective if it is true/existent for all observers.
d2. An object or concept is subjective if it is not objective.
d3. Existence is characterized by interaction. Anything that has an effect on another existing body exists.
d4. Free will is freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes

Postulates:
p1. I am a thinking being. The ultimate nature of my own mind is irrelevant to this fact. (Cogito ergo sum.)
p2. I am able to perceive reality. (Not necessarily the entirety of reality, but my observations are valid, if possibly incomplete.)
p3. The universe is able to be understood by human intelligences.

Conclusions:
c1. Humanity exists (p2)
c2. Humans have many differing concepts of morality (p2)
c3. Morality is subjective (c2, d1, d2)
c4. Like circumstances produce like results (p2, p3)
c5. The concept of free will is meaningless (d4, c4)

Theory of Ethics

In the absence of any objective morality, the interests of intelligent beings is the highest goal for said beings. It is within the interests of intelligent beings to promote the happiness (utility) of themselves.

Thus, actions which increase the utility of said intelligences are the highest goals.

The utility of a society is protected by certain rules. Such rules are called ?natural rights.? The concept of natural rights are significantly more conducive to utility then the violation of natural rights for the sake of increased utility. One would require generally unrealistic benefits from such a violation in order that said violation could be justified.

Free Will

c5. The concept of free will is meaningless (d4, c4)

One cannot have a universe in which the universal law of cause and effect (c4) is in place as well as freedom from external influences. Nothing within the universe can be independent of external causes, as by definition, anything that exists interacts with other things.

Such an object, which interacts with nothing, does not exist within this universe.

c4. Like circumstances produce like results (p2, p3)

Essential to the concept of free will is the ability to have chosen differently. However, in any instance, if exactly the same circumstances were to occur, the exact same decision(s) by (an) intelligent being(s) would be made. Thus, there is never any possibility to have chosen other then what is causally determined.




This was actually an assignment I had done for a class a few weeks ago (high school philosophy). I might well add to this, depending on how it's torn apart, and how I can rebuild it.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5485329 - 04/06/06 01:16 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You and I share similar definitions and postulates, yet arrive at different conclusions. Perhaps as time permits and interest motivates, I will produce a similar post to yours here in this thread, and compare/contrast.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5485365 - 04/06/06 02:02 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

That was pretty good. :cool: Very concise!

The free will part I am still on the fence with.

Logic regarding the sequential order of cause and effect would deem, a predictable choice being made in a given situation.

However, people have made radically different choices based on a change of heart that comes from out of reflection.

That reflection time in the heart, is like a pause, in the linear cause and effect clock. During that pause, a lot is happening, that breaks the linear order of cause and effect when one hits the play button again.

Can we be so sure, that the thought to take a pause to reflect from the heart was predetermined and can we be so sure, that the choice coming out of it would be predeterminable?

I've been thinking about free will and pre-determinism a lot on my own time lately.


Currently, I think, I can drop into auto pilot mode and let my subconscious drive me to react through cause and effect and then, things are predetermined as you stated OR, I can engage cognitive thought, reflect, and break the chains (become free) and will the start of a new chain reaction experience until, I break that one.

I see both waves and particles at play.

I'm not ready to make conclusions on that one yet. Still much more to reason through.

What grade and comments did you get on it by the way from your Prof?

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5486155 - 04/06/06 11:03 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Can we be so sure, that the thought to take a pause to reflect from the heart was predetermined and can we be so sure, that the choice coming out of it would be predeterminable?




I have a difficult time understanding why this would not be determined. Is it entirely without cause? If so, then would it not be random, and still removed from the idea of "free will?"

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Currently, I think, I can drop into auto pilot mode and let my subconscious drive me to react through cause and effect and then, things are predetermined as you stated OR, I can engage cognitive thought, reflect, and break the chains (become free) and will the start of a new chain reaction experience until, I break that one.




How does cognition and reflection break causality?

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
What grade and comments did you get on it by the way from your Prof?





Got an A. She warned against locking myself into thinking in dichotomies. She noted my understanding of how our definitions of various terms help determine our view of reality, and my attempt to be more scientific with my thoughts. She suggested I read Wittgenstein.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5486340 - 04/06/06 12:03 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

First flaw: that there would be a starting point of your philosophy.

Our philosophies and ideologies are cardhouses 'built on sand'.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Lakefingers]
    #5486429 - 04/06/06 12:30 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'd be interested in reading your ideas, SkorpivoMusterion. Seeing what paths we each take given the same (or nearly so) bases.


Lakefingers, what then is the point of philosophy if there is no way to know anything beyond Cogito ergo sum? Just to state that what we call "knowledge" is meaningless? That's hardly productive, and you can't know if it's true or not. It's just a cop-out.

How would you, then, go about it, with no starting point? Give me a better alternative, or keep your peace.

If faced with two options, both of which are equally reasonable, equally simple, and equally unprovable, I choose the one that I like best.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5486485 - 04/06/06 12:58 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I have a difficult time understanding why this would not be determined. Is it entirely without cause? If so, then would it not be random, and still removed from the idea of "free will?"




If it were easy to understand, I would have the answer without doubt. Because something may be more complex, it just means to me, I have more to understand about it. I don't feel like I have questioned it enough from every angle.

Nothing is without cause, I grant that. What I speculate on is sort of an intervention mechanism akin to what takes place during an inspired moment or during the pauses of reflection.

It seems to throw the rift into a completely new course of action. Granted, something within the chain link caused the inspiration or thought to pause and reflect. It's what takes place during inspiration or pause that seems to alter the space time boundaries and break linear form from its course and offers choices to set it a new.

I see both at play, even if that is predetermined, free choice is being offered during such times. Inspiration is experienced to come out of the blue and reflection in the heart, brings about a change of peoples mind states from out of the blue it seems to.

I wish I could elucidate it better. I am still questioning it further and from new angles myself.

Quote:

How does cognition and reflection break causality?




Look at how someone keeps repeating the same mistakes for years, and then one day, a light bulb goes off in their head "cognition" and they break the cycle.

I read some research years ago that said the average person only spends on average, 10% of their waking time engaged in cognitive thought. Otherwise it rest in idle and lets subconscious reprogramming run the show. Thats predeterministic living for sure. I spend more in it, at least 80% of my waking time and am even usually lucid in dreams when asleep. I also am someone who feels REALLY free in life, slave or trapped to nothing. I credit predominant states of active cognition.

Again, I currently think a combination of both predeterminisms and free will is at play. I've seen scapes that show even free will to be predetermined, in that all probabilities have already been thought out, and that idea can trouble me.

To think no one ever has an original thought or that anything that happens was set in stone to happen before it did, makes existence nothing more than a fake, a sham, a prison consciousness is bound too. That's a lot to swallow.

On the other hand, when you think more about it, how else could the fabric of reality be held so tightly together to make it appear and be experienced as being so seamless otherwise? When I look at it that way, I see brilliance at work and at least feel privileged to be consciously aware within such an event, if there is nothing else to be had or known.

I think Skorp is on the Free will side of this so I am interested to see what considerations he adds to the view.

Though I see both at play, I am seeing more that what I perceive to be free will may itself just be a higher level of predetermined probabilities to choose from, versus having no choice but to experience the next chain in your link. There is at least some experience of freedom in being able to choose from probabilities.

Even if of the choices, which you would choose was predetermined, does it matter if you can't tell the difference? if so, how and why?

Here's a question. Can you think of one situation, where one can honestly say that they have NO choice of how to perceive something in a matter?

Or when we hit forks in roads and can choose from many directions, not knowing what lies ahead with any of them, what is it then that determines which way to go? Are blind decisions predetermined too? How can they be. Give an example.

Say existence as we know it is a set stage with roles already prewritten. I can not prove or disprove that the acts we play out in the scenes of physicality were assigned to us against our individual will or if we had the freedom to volunteer to play them out and choose which ones we would play. I can't prove or disprove that perhaps there is some higher system of binding yourself to a contract of sorts to play it out in full once the choice is made.

To many unanswered questions to explore. In the meantime, I am on the fence, seeing an admixture of both in the works of the bigger scheme of things.

How do you do it Xanthas? How do you accept that for the rest of your sole/soul conscious existence, be it ending with physical death or eternal, that not a thing you will experience was of your own choosing at any point in time or on some higher level of consciousness?

Here's a potential flaw. If you look to solve the riddle with logic only, logic holds you to linear patterns and all you will see is predeterminism. Yet, a higher form of objective logic can look at that and say, that's an illogical thing to do, to use logic alone.

(I've used the example of logic being a left brain function, using it alone is like rowing a boat with just a left oar. It'll take you in circles)

What else is there to use then? Free creative, abstract thought not bound to any linear system. Now free will is possible again and perhaps logical in its own way as well.

Is existence to you a singularity, duality or Trinity? Does a belief in one or the others determine if one is to lean towards free will or pre determinism? Are they related. If so, how so?

That's great you got an A and thanks for sharing your Profs comments and sharing this with us. Locked into dichotomies, huh?. I wonder how she would expand on that comment. Get her to register here so I can ask. :lol:


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5487801 - 04/06/06 08:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Even if of the choices, which you would choose was predetermined, does it matter if you can't tell the difference? if so, how and why?




I don't believe that we can tell the difference. Nor can I say that it matters, as it would be impossible to know.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Here's a question. Can you think of one situation, where one can honestly say that they have NO choice of how to perceive something in a matter?




I can think of my entire life, and view it as a string of actions made by a self-aware particle whose movements and thoughts would be as predictable to an entity that could comprehend me totally, as the movements of the earth around the sun are to the astronomers of today. I cannot think of a situation in which I believe I could have done other then I did, all factors being the same. A self-aware clock does not have control over its own gears, and will always move in a predictable manner. It cannot control how, or even the rate at which the pendulum swings, nor I my decisions or thoughts.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Or when we hit forks in roads and can choose from many directions, not knowing what lies ahead with any of them, what is it then that determines which way to go? Are blind decisions predetermined too? How can they be. Give an example.




Blind decisions, I would say, are less blind then they appear. The stare of your mind when driving, the sounds the car makes or doesn't make, the physical appearance of the roads, all the various little and not-so-little factors contribute to which neurons fire, which in turn directs the direction one goes. A proper example, beyond logical arguments and the traditional billiard ball argument, requires omniscience.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
How do you do it Xanthas? How do you accept that for the rest of your sole/soul conscious existence, be it ending with physical death or eternal, that not a thing you will experience was of your own choosing at any point in time or on some higher level of consciousness?




I can do it because it's not a matter of what I prefer. After examining what I've seen, the knowledge that passes my tests for validity, my basest beliefs about the universe, the immovable object that is causal determinism appears. I see a dichotomy between determinism and randomness, and nothing in between. If someone could illuminate clearly some other possibility, I'd consider it, see how it fits with what I know about reality.

Besides, it's not so horrible if you enjoy life. I like myself, and don't mind continuing to do what is in my nature. Of course there are things which I want to change, however, I do believe I will change for the better, because it is in my nature to do so. The illusion of choice is acceptable.

It does, however, mean one must rid oneself of the idea of moral responsibility and admiration for accomplishments/punishment for wrongdoing. The goal then becomes to increase utility without regard for who is "responsible" for what. Accomplishments would still be rewarded, though, so as to create more accomplishment.

A side benefit of this is that I find it impossible at present to truly hate anyone/thing, as nobody/thing can be other then what it is.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Here's a potential flaw. If you look to solve the riddle with logic only, logic holds you to linear patterns and all you will see is predeterminism. Yet, a higher form of objective logic can look at that and say, that's an illogical thing to do, to use logic alone.




I cannot see what you're saying. Logic need not be linear, nor need it be uncreative. It is simply a way of thinking, and of organizing said thoughts, allowing other thoughts to be drawn from them.

Without logic, how can one form a coherent idea?

Also, what is this "higher form of objective logic" of which you speak?

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
What else is there to use then? Free creative, abstract thought not bound to any linear system. Now free will is possible again and perhaps logical in its own way as well.




Though I disagree on deeper grounds, that would only be true if the universe conformed to some sort of free, creative, abstract thought not bound to any linear system. What I've observed of the universe is logical.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Is existence to you a singularity, duality or Trinity? Does a belief in one or the others determine if one is to lean towards free will or pre determinism? Are they related. If so, how so?




Mayhap you could rephrase this? What do you mean by existence?

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
That's great you got an A and thanks for sharing your Profs comments and sharing this with us. Locked into dichotomies, huh?. I wonder how she would expand on that comment. Get her to register here so I can ask. :lol:




I do believe she meant my dichotomy between objective/subjective concepts/things.

I'd rather not introduce her to this board, for reasons that I cannot seem to properly articulate.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Edited by Xanthas (04/06/06 09:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShmoppy McGillicuddy
EmpathicSociopath
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 4,145
Loc: Oceania
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5487959 - 04/06/06 09:20 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Please note that Descarte's famous phrase, Cogito Ergo Sum, is inherently flawed.
By stating that he thinks, he presupposes the conclusion, the fact that he exists.

Saying "I think, therefore I am" is silly. You need to verify that you exist before you can state that you are actually doing anything, before you can even state the pronoun "I" for that matter.

There is truth in the argument, somewhere, but a lot of work needs to be done in the area to find it.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5488320 - 04/06/06 11:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

To make this reply read shorter, I left out the longer quotes of yours I am replying to. You know what you said. :wink:

Take your clock analogy and consider how we experience things in life to feel like "right timing" "perfect timing" or "wrong timing or "lousy timing". If predeterminism was a synchronized event and we were like clocks bound to it, would we experience that?  Doesn't that alone give pause to considering that maybe there is both, predetermined synchronization going on and occasional deviations from it, that results in that feeling?

Thats just something I am putting out there for ones own examination.



I understand what you said about blind decisions.

Quote:

I can do it because it's not a matter of what I prefer.




Thats an interesting statement. It could only come from someone who didn't believe in free will. For anyone who feels they can choose preferences, what would you say to that? 

Say right now, you decided you would prefer to think otherwise. Would you say, it was predetermined that you would make that change of mind?

Are all the choices you make based on your predetermined personal preferences, or do you actually feel bound to making certain ones, in the obligatory sense or maybe because they are the most logical, like them or not?

I'm wondering if your belief in predeterminism leaves you feeling that you have to do things you may not like to do. Just curious what its like to be in your head.


Quote:

Besides, it's not so horrible if you enjoy life.




I like my nature and enjoy my life too. Even if it is all predetermined, I feel I lucked out so far. It wouldn;t be that hard for me to accept after all, if I was faced too.

Do you think the idea of predeterminism gives people an excuse to not care or bother in life?

What about the people who hate their lives, believe they are cursed with bad luck, nothing ever goes right or well for them and wish they were dead. Are they predetermined to get the shaft, or is it their perspective that sees their life that way?

Is that just the difference between objective and subjective reality too you. If you beleive in both, then isn't at least the subjective reality freely willed? How does that work for you?


How do you feel about a total failure in life, blaming his fate on predeterminism?

Say some drunk guy rammed your car and said, "It was predetermined dude. I had no choice in the matter. Later! :smile:" and your wife cheated on you and said, "It was predetermined honey, I had no choice in the matter, accept it :smile:" and your son came home one day and said, "Dad, I decided to join a satanic cult and to never speak to you. It was predetermined. I had no choice in the matter. Bye :smile:" and some guy raped, robbed and killed your mother and said, "It was predetermined that I would do that. You can't blame or punish me for it. I had no choice in that matter. See ya around :smile:"

Would you honestly believe no one of those people had a choice in the actions they took?

I only believe that, if I know they didn't take a moment to pause, get cognitive and contemplate options and potential consequences first.

If one believes in predeterminism 100%, what would give them the right to hold anyone else accountable or responsible for their actions? Do you think humans should have such rights to do so based on your base philosphy?

In a light, choosing to believe in predeterminism sounds like waving your own rights of freedom, yet having to give others full rights of freedom. If we can make the choice to hold people accountable or responsible for their actions, and still believe in predeterminism, then something does not make sense there to me.

Can you or anyone, make a strong presentation for how one could believe in predeterminism and also punish people for their actions and make it sound reasonable, rational and logical to do so? Or, is it not and why so?

That one stumps me and I'd like to consider how anyone else reconciles it.


Quote:

I cannot see what you're saying. Logic need not be linear, nor need it be uncreative.




I'm glad to hear you have your two brain hemispheres working as one. :thumbup: Everything I have read on it says it describes sequential order. Linear is the same thing. Some here would argue that logic is independent from abstract creativity because it deals with what is fixed.

Quote:

It is simply a way of thinking, and of organizing said thoughts, allowing other thoughts to be drawn from them.




I see it the other way around. I see that we think all sorts of unbounded,abstract, creative, thoughts and logic gives sensical objective order to them. I see it as a servant to the unbounded, creative, abstract mind. Others see the unbounded, creative, abstract mind as an irrational waste of space, or in the least, as a servant to the logical mind.

Quote:

Without logic, how can one form a coherent idea?




Depends on who you ask and whos logic you go by.:lol: I know many I can speak mutual gibberish with for hours and we understand and make sense of each other easily yet, a third party listening in may hear just "gibberish". Perhaps that's a partial answer to your next question as well.

Quote:

Also, what is this "higher form of objective logic" of which you speak?




Thinking predominantly with the right brain hemisphere and using the left to serve it.

Whatever your understanding of logic having creative license is, would be close to it.

For example, rudimentary logic says "I have ten dollars and that's all its value is. Ten is ten." Add some creative thought, buy ten dollars worth of what you can sell for twenty and now, your only ten has logically become the value of twenty.

Its like how things make sense from hindsight, only the person who sounded nuts at first, saw the logic in it all along using ( a higher order of it)

Is a rock for a pet a logical idea?

Someone started with ridiculous right brain thinking, came up with the idea for a pet rock, the idea to borrow money to package and market it creatively, and made millions selling it.

Do you see the logic applied for making money in the irrational and ridiculous?

To me, a higher order of logic is when order can be applied to far out creative thought and translated to make sense to at least one other.

Quote:

Though I disagree on deeper grounds, that would only be true if the universe conformed to some sort of free, creative, abstract thought not bound to any linear system. What I've observed of the universe is logical.




Based on what I have said, I still see both at play at the same time-subconscious auto pilot versus cognition. If it is conforming to the said above, then it would still be logical. Why can't it be both at the same time or cycle back and forth?



I understand  about the prof. :lol: :wink: I was just kidding anyway.

I realize I am asking a lot of questions wanting to see what you came up with for leaning towards predeterminism that I may not have.
Some are also just for you or anyone reading, to think about if you hadn't yet. No need to reply to them all if you get tired of putting your thoughts out there on it. I do appreciate the time you took to answer them thus far. Thanks. I also appreciate that your post header said, "MY base philosophy" and not "THE base Philosophy"

Your having such a strong base in objectivity and yet a respect for subjectivity makes for a pleasant exchange of thoughts and ideas.:thumbup:
Then again, because I am on the fence and see both at play, still considering things, I really don't have a side to argue. :lol: 

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5488970 - 04/07/06 04:48 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

[...]It does, however, mean one must rid oneself of the idea of moral responsibility and admiration for accomplishments/punishment for wrongdoing. The goal then becomes to increase utility without regard for who is "responsible" for what. Accomplishments would still be rewarded, though, so as to create more accomplishment.

A side benefit of this is that I find it impossible at present to truly hate anyone/thing, as nobody/thing can be other then what it is.[...]



Here I see a major problem, too. Punishing/rewarding. If you exclude one, you have to exclude the other too (for the same reason).
So, if you can't hate someone, is there nor love either, on the other side, only because 'it is the way it is' ?

In the extreme way, I could see universe, life and consciousness as a clockwork, too, but I would miss our capacity of deliberately influence the development of this system, while inherent in this clockwork.
If human clockwork runs wild blindly, it can destroy much of its own system, like cancer in a body. Cancer has not the ability to stop this process and I think it was never seen cancer to repair the damage it has done, but humans have this ability.

Welcome dichotomy :smile:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5489202 - 04/07/06 08:22 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Xanthas writes:

Quote:

I cannot think of a situation in which I believe I could have done other then I did, all factors being the same.




You can't? I can think of dozens of such situations in my own life in the last hour alone, the latest being the decision to use the word "can't" rather than "cannot". The decision immediately prior to that was the decision to step into this thread now rather than wait for Skorp to post his reply and then jump into the thread. The decision immediately prior to that was to jump from the Politics forum to the P&S forum rather than check to see if there was anything new in the Moderator forum. The decision immediately prior to that was to light a cigarette before logging onto The Shroomery rather than wait till I was away from the computer.

You may believe you are an automaton -- a consciousness trapped in a body over which you have no control. You may believe you are just along for the ride. I'm glad I know better.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5489827 - 04/07/06 12:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Xanthas said:
Lakefingers, what then is the point of philosophy if there is no way to know anything beyond Cogito ergo sum? Just to state that what we call "knowledge" is meaningless? That's hardly productive, and you can't know if it's true or not. It's just a cop-out.





Once again, you're putting a first point in your philosophy -- and everyone elses. In addition, cogito ergo sum is the starting point of nothing, because it is not a true, nor interesting, statement. There is no point (point as in teleology, not meaning) to anything. Those that look for points and values are those that have none -- and never can; your stance is nihilism.

I've copped out because I haven't fallen for Cartesianism and analytical philosophy? If I may also point my fingers I'd like to say that you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to philosophy/the body of philosophical knowledge, and I have no sympathy for your premature metaphysical stance.

Quote:

Xanthas said:
How would you, then, go about it, with no starting point? Give me a better alternative, or keep your peace.





This question is asked still from the ideology of the starting point. You're not going to understand if you feel that I've ripped the starting point from your hands and something must replace it. There never was a starting point, it's an illusion, until you've figured this out you can go on asking me, or others, for the answers to your problems of starting-points, but you will not undertsand.

You seem to think that since my statements are incongruable with your presuppositions about the world that I have no empirical evidence nor rational coherence to what I am saying. This is untrue [period].

The message is, my friend, that there never was, is and probably never will be a starting point. The better alternative: start reading up on the last 150 years of philosophical debate and think about what it is that makes you seek a starting point (is or was this ever a reasonable, a RATIONAL, enterprise), etc. There is an article by Gilles Deleuze called "The Discussion: What is it and what is it good for?" If you study this care-ful-ly you may gain a freer relationship to the tradition of thinking which you are unaware that you belong to.
I also recommend a few others articles/books: Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature", Charles Taylor's "Overcoming Epistemology", Hilary Putnam's "Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized", Heidegger's "The Essence of Truth". These might give you another perspective on philosophy -- who knows you might even get so far as to not fall for Postmodernism nor Metaphysicalism.

Quote:

Xanthas said:
If faced with two options, both of which are equally reasonable, equally simple, and equally unprovable, I choose the one that I like best.




I see.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHahzist
Surfing theWaves of Chaos

Registered: 02/15/04
Posts: 214
Last seen: 12 years, 23 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5490573 - 04/07/06 04:33 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

It does, however, mean one must rid oneself of the idea of moral responsibility




I agree with some of what gettinjiggywithit said in response to this. But to state my opinion simply.

Imagine you are faced with a moral decision. You go through a thought process on what choice to make. YOU. Not an external force outside of you. If you make the immoral choice, then to rid yourself of moral responsibility is bullshit as long as you were aware that the choice you made was immoral.

You can accept the fact that everything has a cause, but if the cause is from yourself, then it was based on free will. But to agree with this is to believe that human beings are inherently special beings in the universe. If you believe in an immortal soul in any sense relating to human beings then free will fits just fine I think.

By soul I really mean just about anything that says we are not only biological machines. I like the term observer. Within our bodies there is an observer of our experiences; an awareness.


Edited by Hahzist (04/07/06 04:35 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5491519 - 04/08/06 12:02 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Alright, here is a [my] starting point of philosophy:

Definitions:

d1. An object is metaphysically objective if independent from a perceiver's consciousness.
d2. A concept is epistemologically objective if adhered to reality by reason in accordance with logic.
d3. All objects are naturally objective & a concept is subjective if not epistemologically objective.
d4. Existence is characterized by the state of existing. Naturally, the state of existing implies interaction in one form or another.
d5. Reality is interchangeable with the word nature.
d6. Volition is the faculty of will; of choice.
d7. Interest is that which is objectively beneficial to one's life.


Postulates:

p1. Oneself experiences something.
p2. Oneself exists.
p3. Everything that exists is Reality.
p4. Reality is objective.
p5. Reality is knowable.


Conclusions:

c1. Existence exists.
c2. Oneself must expend effort, and make choices to further one's own existence.
c3. To survive, Oneself must act in accordance with Reality.
c4. Reality is metaphysically objective, hence, one's actions ought to adhere to Reality if Oneself chooses to live successfully. Therefore, if Oneself chooses to further one's own existence successfully in congruity with Reality, one must develop and/or follow an objective epistemology which supports an objective standard of ethics.
c5. Therefore, Rational Morality must be objective.
c6. Volition is the only means by which Oneself is able to act in accordance to Reality - hence, is crucial to One's survival.


Theory of Ethics

In the presence of Objective Reality, an objective morality is essential to Oneself's interest. Therefore, if Oneself wishes to survive successfully in harmony with Reality, then an objective morality is the standards of ethics, whereby the ultimate goal is to promote happiness.

Ergo, productivity is the highest achievement of Oneself's life.


Volition

Volition is a causal agent. It is not mechanistically bound by the Law of Causality nor independent of it. Rather, the Law of Causality is the means by which Volition acts; the LoC is not the disqualifier of Volition, rather, its precondition.

Without Volition, morality is pointless. Only in the recognition of the fact that Oneself has the capacity to focus, and conscientiously exercise volition, does morality become applicable [and so it is].

There is often, as I suspect is the case with yourself as well, the question of what relation the mind bears to the brain/body. Of course, such a question is already loaded with a sophomoric and faulty dichotomy. People whom hold implicit faulty premises imply a sort of "interaction between" mind and body. This is ultimately as silly as implying a sort of "interaction between" vision and eyes, or hearing and ears, or digestion and stomach. All of these processes are wholly integrated with the nature of such functional organs. The mind is simply the brain experienced from an introspective point of view - in other words, we are all our brains just as we are our hearts, eyes, ears, skin and so forth. The mind is what the brain does - which is to say the mind is what you are doing, just as vision is what the eye does, just as hearing is what the ears do. The mind is an attribute of the body. But, can it therefore, be described as material? It can only insofar as it is part of the body, which is itself material. But we characteristically refer to consciousness as "mental" instead of physical or material in order to distinguish its actions from those that involve other parts of the physical body. So in that sense, conscious acts are non-physical or non-material by definition. The reductive [or eliminative] materialist is uncomfortable with this designation, because it suggests that mental acts are incorporeal and insubstantial, connoting some form of mysticism. But they need not be viewed that way, as long as we understand that consciousness is an attribute of a physical brain and central nervous system which are indispensable to its existence.

Following along, let's address your 4th conclusion that "like circumstances produce like results". Here it seems you are mixing up consistency with determinism. Although metaphysically-necessitated actions are quite consistent, it remains of utmost importance to differentiate from the metaphysically-governed and the volitionally-governed. The metaphysically-given is necessitated, i.e., absolute - there is only one way in which things can occur; because there simply is no other alternative. When it comes to actions, there are multifarious routes in which one's actions can occur - therefore, one's actions are not determined. I could've went to bed early tonight, but instead decided to spare time to create this post, for instance. The point, once more, is that consistency does not equate with determinism.

Furthermore, the Law of Causality only affirms a necessary connection between entities and their actions. It does not specify any particular kind of entity or action, nor does it say that only mechanistic relationships can occur - the kind seen in elaborate domino-effects - that is one common form of causation, but it doesn't accroach the field. The LoC only tells us that whatever entities there are, they act in accordance with their nature, and whatever actions there are, they are performed and determined by the entity which acts. The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of Identity, which is a corollary of Existence.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/08/06 12:30 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5492063 - 04/08/06 06:41 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

""Existence exists.""

I like  that! :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Gomp]
    #5497781 - 04/09/06 08:02 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Sorry for the long time since response, I've been somewhat busy.

Quote:

Shmoppy McGillicuddy said:
Please note that Descarte's famous phrase, Cogito Ergo Sum, is inherently flawed.
By stating that he thinks, he presupposes the conclusion, the fact that he exists.

Saying "I think, therefore I am" is silly. You need to verify that you exist before you can state that you are actually doing anything, before you can even state the pronoun "I" for that matter.

There is truth in the argument, somewhere, but a lot of work needs to be done in the area to find it.




Mind if I quote the work needing to be done?
Quote:

Saint Augustine said:
Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima etc.




Meaning, roughly-

I am certain that I am, that I know that I am, and that I love to be and to know. In the face of these truths, the quibbles of the skeptics lose their force. If they say: "What if you are mistaken?--well, if I am mistaken, I am. For, if one does not exist, he can by no means be mistaken. Therefore, I am, if I am mistaken. Because, therefore, I am, if I am mistaken, how can I be mistaken that I am, since it is certain that I am, if I am mistaken? And because, if I could be mistaken, I would have to be the one who is mistaken, therefore, I am most certainly not mistaken in knowing that I am. Nor, as a consequence, am I mistaken in knowing that I know. For, just as I know that I am, I also know that I know. And when I love both to be and to know, then I add to the things I know a third and equally important knowledge, the fact that I love. Nor am I mistaken that I love, since I am not mistaken concerning the objects of my love. For, even though these objects were false, it would still be true that I loved illusions.

(taken from http://framingbusiness.net/php/2005/descarteslanguage.php)

Saying ?there is thinking? is rather useless, somewhat like saying ?there is hardness.? Thinking is a property of a thinker, as hardness is a property of an object. You may take dispute with the idea that they're ?my? thoughts, but I make not overmuch distinction between ?me? and ?the thoughts I experience?




Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Thats an interesting statement. It could only come from someone who didn't believe in free will. For anyone who feels they can choose preferences, what would you say to that? 




I'm not speaking about choosing preferences, I'm speaking about the conclusions I come to.


Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Say right now, you decided you would prefer to think otherwise. Would you say, it was predetermined that you would make that change of mind?



Yep.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Are all the choices you make based on your predetermined personal preferences, or do you actually feel bound to making certain ones, in the obligatory sense or maybe because they are the most logical, like them or not?

I'm wondering if your belief in predeterminism leaves you feeling that you have to do things you may not like to do. Just curious what its like to be in your head.




Nope, it doesn't. I can't know what I am predetermined to do, and therefore have no (from my perspective) bindings. I wonder, if somehow I did know what was fated for me, could I just not do it, thus invalidating my own omniscience?

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Do you think the idea of predeterminism gives people an excuse to not care or bother in life?




Absolutely not. You're confusing determinism with fatalism. I don't deny the significance of human actions in influencing the world.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
What about the people who hate their lives, believe they are cursed with bad luck, nothing ever goes right or well for them and wish they were dead. Are they predetermined to get the shaft, or is it their perspective that sees their life that way?




I'd say that all feelings, events, and perspectives, are the product of the past. Yes, in short, to both answers. One's life may be good or bad, and seen as either, depending on one's viewpoint, which I would say is causally determined. If that's what you're asking. (I've answered that one weird. If you'd like a clarification, I'd also ask one for your previous question. If not, then not.)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Is that just the difference between objective and subjective reality too you. If you beleive in both, then isn't at least the subjective reality freely willed? How does that work for you?




No. Both objective and subjective reality, IMO, are deterministic. Even if subjective reality is not corporeal, I view it as the expression of things that are. Namely, the nervous system.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
How do you feel about a total failure in life, blaming his fate on predeterminism?

Say some drunk guy rammed your car and said, "It was predetermined dude. I had no choice in the matter. Later! :smile:" and your wife cheated on you and said, "It was predetermined honey, I had no choice in the matter, accept it :smile:" and your son came home one day and said, "Dad, I decided to join a satanic cult and to never speak to you. It was predetermined. I had no choice in the matter. Bye :smile:" and some guy raped, robbed and killed your mother and said, "It was predetermined that I would do that. You can't blame or punish me for it. I had no choice in that matter. See ya around :smile:"




I believe we're confusing both the terms of punishment and choice. What I mean by punishment is simply something negative imposed on one who has done something ?wrong.? In a (my) deterministic, utilitarian world, punishment is not doled out solely on the basis of wrongdoing. It would be replaced by incentive/behavior modification. Rehabilitation, instead of jail, in other words. (also, the doctrines of heaven/hell or karma don't work with determinism (like that needs to be said.))

I also don't deny that, from our viewpoint, humans have control over their actions. When I speak of determinism, and that humans only have the illusion of free will, what I mean is back to my ?Like circumstances produce like results,? phrase. More explicitly, that should have been ?exactly the same circumstances (objectively, subjectively) produce exactly the same results.? Can anyone deny that, if you have a million scenarios in which every particle is in the same position, with the same velocity, as the next scenario, that the particles will behave the same in all cases? I hold that true for the entire universe, including humanity. (What I've just said ignores the probabilistic concepts of quantum theory, however, still stands up if reformatted to fit it, due to the utterly random nature of such.)

Take the classic billiard ball analogy. You have a table set up, with a pool cue and several balls. If one were to know the exact properties of every object, and the velocity of the cue as it hit the first ball, one could, through simple math, calculate exactly, to whatever degree of precision you wanted, the ending place of the balls.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
If one believes in predeterminism 100%, what would give them the right to hold anyone else accountable or responsible for their actions? Do you think humans should have such rights to do so based on your base philosphy?




Incentive/behavior modification to increase utility.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
I'm glad to hear you have your two brain hemispheres working as one. :thumbup: Everything I have read on it says it describes sequential order. Linear is the same thing. Some here would argue that logic is independent from abstract creativity because it deals with what is fixed.




There are many systems of logic.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Depends on who you ask and whos logic you go by.:lol: I know many I can speak mutual gibberish with for hours and we understand and make sense of each other easily yet, a third party listening in may hear just "gibberish". Perhaps that's a partial answer to your next question as well.




There's a logic behind what you're saying, that only the two of you have caught on to, then.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
For example, rudimentary logic says "I have ten dollars and that's all its value is. Ten is ten." Add some creative thought, buy ten dollars worth of what you can sell for twenty and now, your only ten has logically become the value of twenty.

Its like how things make sense from hindsight, only the person who sounded nuts at first, saw the logic in it all along using ( a higher order of it)




I still believe the circumstances you describe are logical, if immensely more complex then pure math. You're confusing two different systems of logic. By the law of identity, ten does equal ten, however, it states nothing as to the value people subjectively place on little pieces of paper versus other objects.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Based on what I have said, I still see both at play at the same time-subconscious auto pilot versus cognition. If it is conforming to the said above, then it would still be logical. Why can't it be both at the same time or cycle back and forth?




Those are the deeper grounds I disagree upon. If the system is causal, then free will still does not exist, for the choices of people are also causally determined. If the system is random, then, well, it's random, and there's still no room for free will.

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
I realize I am asking a lot of questions wanting to see what you came up with for leaning towards predeterminism that I may not have.
Some are also just for you or anyone reading, to think about if you hadn't yet. No need to reply to them all if you get tired of putting your thoughts out there on it. I do appreciate the time you took to answer them thus far. Thanks. I also appreciate that your post header said, "MY base philosophy" and not "THE base Philosophy"




Haha... I posted this to (try to) answer questions (even if it takes me forever).

Have you ever heard of someone so arrogant as to say that?


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5497784 - 04/09/06 08:02 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
So, if you can't hate someone, is there nor love either, on the other side, only because 'it is the way it is' ?




Thing is, hating someone is counterproductive, while loving someone is not. It increases utility, while hatred of someone/thing does the opposite. The realization that all is deterministic simply provides a good excuse not to hate.

(I've not responded to some of what BlueCoyote and all of what Phred have said because I believe I've dealt with it when responding to gettinjiggywithit)






Lakefingers, I'll continue this as though you've said nothing, because while you've suggested direction, you've given no direct information. (no offense intended from that).






Quote:

Hahzist said:
You can accept the fact that everything has a cause, but if the cause is from yourself, then it was based on free will. But to agree with this is to believe that human beings are inherently special beings in the universe. If you believe in an immortal soul in any sense relating to human beings then free will fits just fine I think.




Not quite. If everything has a cause, and the cause of your actions is you, then other things are the cause of you, thus, those other things are the ultimate cause of your actions. Even if you believe that humans are special beings with a ?soul? then that ?soul? exists and was shaped by other factors. If ?god? created your soul, then god is the original cause, and responsible, ultimately, for the actions of your soul, which is responsible for the actions of your mind, down to body, etc.

Quote:

Hahzist said:
By soul I really mean just about anything that says we are not only biological machines. I like the term observer. Within our bodies there is an observer of our experiences; an awareness.




What if we are just biological machines, eh?

SkorpivoMusterion, I'm going to think about/reread what you've said a while before replying. This post has taken long enough out of one day.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5499457 - 04/10/06 11:02 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Hehe, why excuse hate and not excuse love ? Only for utilitarianism ? Utilitarianism will blow the 'weak' (unproductive, cost intensive) away, I think, so the concept of love could be quite hindering :grin:

Anyways, if anyone considers oneself as predetermined with no free will, that is his problem. But please, they don't should expect from me the same :lol: That means, if someone can predetermine me, good for him, but he shouldn't blame me, if he can't and I give good reasons :wink:

(No offense anywhere intended)


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5499812 - 04/10/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Blue , he did say it was a part of HIS philosophy. He seems to understand and respect the subjectivity of it. In his view, he was just predetermined to make the choice to believe in predeterminism. If he sees others believing in free will, he has no choice but to understand their beliefs in it are also predetermined.

Of course if he sees reason to debate it, he could only see that as being predetermined as well. After all, he said we are preprogrammed biological machines so he certainly can't take anything personally, now can he? And if he did, it was predetermined that he would so you are off the hook. :wink:

With predeterminism, everyone is technically off the hook. Makes you wonder for those who believe in a Higher creative intelligence behind all of this, that has forgiven everything, may be able to do so because it was all predetermined. How could hold any choice made against us. Yet that being supposedly gave us free will too. Maybe that free will relates the freedom to choose from all of the predetermined possibilities to be played out.

Wild stuff to think about when looking at the big scheme of things.


Xanthas, thanks for answering all of my questions. Your answers gave rise to more questions. I think I will just sit on your replies and contemplate where you are coming from, like using your answers as food for thought.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5500316 - 04/10/06 03:55 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Ah yes, predetermined to be free, that sounds better...or freedom embedded in predeterminism, I like that :wink:
Like the guitar strings are determined, and its your freedom to play :wink:
But I think, he says, even our play is determined :shrug:
:heart:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5500773 - 04/10/06 06:27 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Everyone is somewhat off the hook, in the grand scheme of things. (You're right about not being able to take anything personally. I've not been truly angry for years, beyond the few-minute flashes that are automatic.)

Ask any other questions you want. Answering question is a great way to stretch oneself. I posted this to be tested.

Got it right, BlueCoyote, that even our play is determined. It's just the expression of the music on the sheet, which was given to everyone/thing during the construction of the concert hall.

Hehe, why excuse hate and not excuse love ? Only for utilitarianism ? Utilitarianism will blow the 'weak' (unproductive, cost intensive) away, I think, so the concept of love could be quite hindering

Rephrase that maybe?

If you're interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Wikipedia is my god.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5501069 - 04/10/06 07:44 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
so the concept of love could be quite hindering :grin:




I doubt it. The concept of love, when employed by a mind free of attachment, is quite the formidable force. I have yet to find a weakness of love.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5503019 - 04/11/06 10:56 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I like to be questioned, too, because I often am so short in trying to explain the 'essence' :wink:

Quote:

Xanthas said:
Got it right, BlueCoyote, that even our play is determined. It's just the expression of the music on the sheet, which was given to everyone/thing during the construction of the concert hall.



and what would you think of improvisation, where the preset context and your creativity will mix ?

Quote:

Hehe, why excuse hate and not excuse love ? Only for utilitarianism ? Utilitarianism will blow the 'weak' (unproductive, cost intensive) away, I think, so the concept of love could be quite hindering

Rephrase that maybe?



Yes. In the present western economic society, love is often seen to be hindering in making personal career. You will be too weak for the market, or inside a hierarchic structured company or organization. They make their profits from one quarter to the next and use their profit as mean of power.
This old old pattern runs until now in most of the big businesses or governments.
I am in favor of love too, very much, indeed, but, in an extreme, selecting private goals, there is sometimes need to jump over some love of yourself and love for other. Even this achievement has a foul taste, it will work, until now.
I try to work with love too, but these goals are long-term, and it is extremely heavy to persist in the frosting outer world, as long as 'their' concept works :wink:
It needs enormous duration and effort to melt that icy power dome. And 'they' will battle it, where ever they can with their subtle means. One only can counter with substance. The efforts, which were done so far, are not enough. And one needs his free will, to break through their 'machine' of means and power [utilized determinism], else one will been blown away.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5504329 - 04/11/06 04:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm done with the analogy, if you don't mind. It's more confusing then the concept, and I think I misworded it earlier.

What I'm saying is that even one's brilliant streaks are manifestations of a physical reality which is determined by physical laws, of which humans are part of. Thus, the interplay between a human being and his/her surroundings is determined from that humans mind, which is further based upon the brain, back and back until the first instant of the universe.

I disagree with most of the second half of your post.

Firstly, "the system" does not draw its power from determinism in any way, and could not without omniscience.

Secondly, utilitarianism is about maximizing the good (being happy) and minimizing the bad (pain/being unhappy). If getting ahead in a career by stepping over others really makes one happy, and it's not just a pathological itch that must be scratched, then it's in accordance with utilitarianism only if the utility gained from such is greater then the collective BS you put people though minus how much less happy you'd be if you got there without stepping on people.

Put simply, I get more out of not being a cold heartless bastard then from being one, thus, it's in accordance with utilitarianism to love others.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Edited by Xanthas (04/11/06 04:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: Xanthas]
    #5511073 - 04/13/06 03:29 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I offered that for explanation of the 'classical' matter head, who is both, predeterministic and utilitarianistic and who sits in the leading chairs of our economy and politic. It is very easy to loose love and compassion in these positions and this strengthened world-view.
If you can hold it, don't loose it.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedNucleus
Causal Observer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Starting point of a (my) philosophy. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5512329 - 04/13/06 01:20 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I wrote out why I thought your reasoning was too simplistic, but I deleted it. Well done. You have convinced me that free will does not exist. Instead, the brain weighs choices based on stored knowledge, and chooses what it thinks is best based on whatever information rises to consciousness and subconsciousness. For example, my brain is faced with a decision: Study or Shroomery? A process occurs and the brain decides that studying can be sufficiently completed at a later time. In that case, since more pleasure is derived from Shroomery, it is the choice. It is a mechanical operation in every way.

"p3. The universe is able to be understood by human intelligences."

I think your wording is too vague. "The universe" contains much that cannot ever be observed. More importantly, if there is anything about the universe that absolutely cannot be understood by humans, it is possible that no human is aware of this fact. If the limit of our intelligence is unknown, it is simple to assume that our ability to intelligently understand is limitless.


--------------------
Namaste


Edited by RedNukleus (04/13/06 01:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Philosophy: Who needs it?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,880 24 05/27/08 06:51 AM
by zouden
* Everything is predetermined
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Scarfmeister 4,148 77 05/01/03 02:47 AM
by Sclorch
* Predeterminism versus Freewill
( 1 2 all )
TheProphet 4,094 20 10/13/05 10:39 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Football and Philosophy... Sclorch 846 9 12/01/03 03:19 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* Maynard and philosophy chodamunky 1,663 6 12/08/02 08:33 PM
by 3eyedgod
* No more Spirituality or Philosophy in S&P chemkid 1,521 6 10/10/02 08:47 AM
by Anonymous
* Philosophy Intro - New.. Asking for help. Phobos 1,425 13 08/16/03 02:33 PM
by Malachi
* christianity and philosophy Anonymous 801 6 08/11/03 12:30 PM
by Malachi

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,406 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.