Philosophy
By popular request, a thread devoted to philosophical inquiry.
Date: January 3, 2009
Categories: The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 107 comments
-
1
Piggy
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 17:14Yeah! Philosophy! Now for a topic…
How much does society decree who we are?
0
0
-
2
Taiwan Hippo Fan (THF)
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 17:23Yay! Now since no one is going for this topic on the Chameleon, let’s try it here:
To what degree are you free?
0
0
-
3
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak!
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 17:591- I could answer that in a 6 page essay I wrote recently or just tell you to read “status anxiety” by Alain de Botton.
2- You are free to an degree you wish, however you must first aquire that freedom by casting off that which binds you. Somethings you may find to be hard to cast. Peer pressure is one but things like gossip accompany it. As my observations of high school show, sometimes its hard to cast of such chains.
0
0
-
4
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 18:132-To a remarkably small degree. However, many of the things you are not free to do are things i really care about doing, so i’m not terribly worried about that (however, wiretapping and such does worry me greatly.)
0
0
-
5
YodaShmoda
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 19:041. It decrees who we are to the point of how much we value socity’s remarks. If you could care less what socity says then, you-to yourself at least- are whom ever you wish to be. But if your standpoint on yourself is only what socity says then you are whom ever scocity decress you to be.
2. You are only free to think and feel how you think and feel and act. People can outlaw murduring and robbing but that doesn’t stop you from doing so. You are free to make your desition on weather or not you wish to be punished. But you aren’t free to defy gravity and change inerita. So, you are free to act and feel as you wish, you aren’t free to defy Nature’s laws.
0
0
-
6
Tessera Rose
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 19:18The extent of ones freedome depends on how much they are willing to give up.
0
0
-
7
small but fierce
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 22:45How much are you willing to give up?
0
0
-
8
small but fierce
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 22:46Do not conform to society’s laws. Then you shall be free.
0
0
-
9
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 3rd, 2009 @ 22:48(8) Which laws should I break, and how will breaking them make me freer than I am now?
0
0
-
10
the mole
in January 4th, 2009 @ 07:052-phisics dictates that are lives an dictated by the universe
0
0
-
11
the mole
in January 4th, 2009 @ 07:09Without law the world would decend into a casam of looking for food.
0
0
-
11.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 15:03No, without law, there would just be rampant carnage.
0
0
-
12
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
in January 4th, 2009 @ 07:43Now here’s a couple of (“follow-up”?) questions about freedom:
How much is our freedom restricted by the law (in any country)? What makes the US “the land of the free”?
0
0
-
12.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 15:11The law protects the freedoms that law-makers think are most important, at the expense of the freedoms it considers unimportant. For example, laws against murder try to protect the freedom to not be murdered against your will, but it restricts the freedom to murder. China’s time travel ban protects the freedom to not accidentally see things that one finds disrespectful to history, but it restricts the freedom to read about time travel.
I don’t know why the U.S. calls itself the land of the free, though, to be honest. I don’t think it should.
0
0
-
13
Piggy
in January 4th, 2009 @ 09:19My opinion on my original question regarding society (first post) is that, in human history, almost all ideas have been thought of already. Nothing is really “original”; each generation creates the next. If you say, “I’m gonna be a nonconformist. I’m gonna ignore society,” you only say that because it’s been done before. In fact, in our state of mind as a society, nonconformity is popular and, ergo, cancels out its intended effects.
0
0
-
13.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 15:17Some ideas have come from nature or from different societies. Also, just because an idea has been thought of already doesn’t mean that the second time it came up was a result of the first. When someone on MuseBlog thought up ‘CuddleFish’, it had been thought of before, but that was a coincidence.
Anyway, new ideas are being thought of, or at least, old ones are being combined and built upon. If that weren’t the case, no-one would have invented anything since you posted.
0
0
-
14
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 4th, 2009 @ 10:0413-I would agree. Ideas are not created in a vacuum, therefore a true original idea can’t exist.
0
0
-
15
YodaShmoda
in January 4th, 2009 @ 10:1812- Countries can’t just take away freedom. They can make laws so that your choices give you harsher consequences. But countries can’t tkae away the freedom to make that choice.
The U.S. is closer to the ideal “Land of the free” becuase it allows us to make more choices without frearing consequences. Granted, it still doesn’t allow us to make the choice to kill someone with out a consequence, but it does allow the freedom to choose religons, and ideals, and reactions to problems.
0
0
-
15.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 15:19“Making laws so that your choices give you harsher consequences” takes away your freedom to make that choice without consequences. You know this; you yourself said that the U.S. “doesn’t allow us to make the choice to kill someone without a consequence.” Therefore, countries can indeed take away freedom.
0
0
-
16
Nthanda the Laugher
in January 4th, 2009 @ 10:56Well, first of all, what is free, exactly? Everyone has different ideas and different standards. For people in the Middle East, maybe it would be freedom to practice religion, or freedom from worry. Here in the US, it’s freedom to do what we want. We are willing to submit to most laws (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.) in exchange for the security of basic freedoms.
So here’s a question I have…why does the government get to say, “We grant you the basic freedoms of humanity”? Don’t we already have them?
0
0
-
17
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak
in January 4th, 2009 @ 12:1516- they could be saying that as opposed to “we take away the basic freedoms of humanity” It’s probably just another way to emphasise democracy.
0
0
-
18
penguini
in January 4th, 2009 @ 18:02i would recommend reading the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Heinlein for those who haven’t. It has some excellent political commentary in it. Also Prof La Paz, who has some interesting views.
0
0
-
19
Cliff Eagle
in January 4th, 2009 @ 18:39I just finished Machiavelli’s the Prince.
0
0
-
20
The Man For Aeiou
in January 4th, 2009 @ 20:21Politics, Politics, Politics! Bah! The goverment is there to protect our human rights. Locke is right.*
*I have never read locke.
0
0
-
20.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 15:26Efforts to protect some rights will always restrict others. Therefore, the idea of a government–or anything–existing in order to protect rights in general is undesirable. You could argue that the government exists in order to protect specific, important rights, but you’ll find that people (even those in government) tend to disagree about what those rights may be. This proves that multi-person governments* will always be inefficient, but personally, I think that the alternatives (an absolute ruler or anarchy) would be even worse, so unfortunately, we’re stuck with inefficiency or worse until we go extinct.
*In a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, the government can be composed of one person who hopefully knows which rights, if any, en wants to protect.
0
0
-
21
Ã߀ƒ
in January 5th, 2009 @ 00:44Should there be morals?
0
0
-
22
Nthanda the Laugher
in January 5th, 2009 @ 13:0421–Yes. I think there are certain instinctive morals that humans have, and that these are necessary for the survival of civilized society. Think about all the wars that have ever occured on this planet–they’ve all been associated with a distinct lack of socially accepted morals.
Lord of the Flies, anyone? Are humans essentially good or essentially bad?
0
0
-
23
Piggy
in January 5th, 2009 @ 15:5422- Well, to answer that, you’d have to get into theology. And so I will. (If you’ve got something against religion, the Bible, etc., don’t yell at me. Just don’t read this post.) Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were created and then corrupted by the serpent. Because of this, it seems clear to me that we are basically good, but, because of original sin, have bad tendencies to which almost every human in history has succumbed. That’s the basic idea, anyhoo.
0
0
-
24
YodaShmoda
in January 5th, 2009 @ 16:0621- Everyone has there own morals. And I think there should be morals in the world. Without morals we don’t have judgement. All of our choices are based on our personal morals. Plus Nthanda’s right. Even our bad choices are made from morals.
Do we learn bad things or are we born that way? (aka Are you born bad?)
0
0
-
25
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 5th, 2009 @ 18:4921- yes. However, the morals shouldn’t be accepted as irrefutable and should be questioned. I feel that in most cases, we learn bad things. In the other cases, the people in question are likely insane. What is your definition of insanity?
0
0
-
26
YodaShmoda
in January 5th, 2009 @ 19:1325- Isn’t insanity more of an actual fact thingy?
0
0
-
27
The Skipper Nancy
in January 5th, 2009 @ 19:54Not exactly on the topic of this thread, but I think I’ll get more serious answers here than on the Random thread. Has anyone here read The Sound and the Fury and if so would they offer any thoughts?
0
0
-
28
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 5th, 2009 @ 20:37I recommend listening to The Sound and the Fury on audiobook. I did that straight through during a long car ride and noticed a lot of things that I’m sure I would have missed reading it normally.
0
0
-
29
The Man For Aeiou
in January 6th, 2009 @ 20:5322- Humans are mostly harmless.
0
0
-
30
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak
in January 7th, 2009 @ 14:15We talked about this is english class today: its started out as a conversation on humor in great expectations, and then turned into a period long philisophical batte. Do you think the old novels should be read by modern day classes? Most students in my honors class can’t even find the humor funny, much less relate to the main characters and if they can’t understand it then what are they getting out of it? I defended Dickens, (and my poor teacher) talking about how much we learn about other cultures through this, even if it is a culture that took place a hundred years ago. Most, however, argued that they dont like the book and can’t find these things funny because comedy has changed. (most of these people suffer from overusing sparknotes) What do you think?
0
0
-
31
Sweet Melpomene
in January 7th, 2009 @ 15:5027- SKIPPER! HI.
30- Sparknotes are for the weak-minded! At least most novels read in classes have some sort of value (exception = Tess of the d’Urbervilles). Really, our language has changed but our motivations haven’t. Just, a major difference is, in older books, the main conflict is usually man vs self or man vs nature. Newer books are mostly man vs man/manmade circumstances.
This is where I get pretentious.
If they’d read constantly and willingly, they’d probably at least -understand- the humour, even if they wouldn’t be amused by it. I mean, c’mon, Shakespeare is a dirty old man. He’s just subtle.I think this is about to turn into a rant about how our culture, and by extension, our school system, plays to the lowest common denominator.
Most want the grade, not the actual knowledge.
Too many times have I heard people
complainwhine about how “unfair” it is that they actually have to do something in order to learn a concept. Most notably, people in junior chemistry:
“Our teacher didn’t teach us half the stuff on the homework!”
“Was it in the book?”
“I didn’t look! Why should I have to do that?”
[here, I look through the book and confirm that everything is indeed contained within its pages]
“It’s here, see? Try the book next time.”
“But it’s not fair! He didn’t tell us to read the chapter!”Really? REALLY?
And so on. My physics teacher assigned book problems. Most of the class got excited and had them done before we even covered the material in class. I don’t see why they couldn’t.
-smolders in corner-
0
0
-
32
YodaShmoda
in January 7th, 2009 @ 17:1830- This is more of a books and reading thing but whatever. Melopene is right. We always have the same feelings weather or not they are based on the same reasons.
0
0
-
33
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak
in January 7th, 2009 @ 18:0431- I agree with you wholeheartedly except in my HONORS class the most common phrase is “I didn’t even read the book”
I really irked me that such a small percent of my class could find the humor in that particular passage (aka: me) What’s not funny about a comatose old woman teaching from her dimly lit bedroom, or heaping amouts of sympathy in the form of gravy? Or “putting a margin” on debts you can never hope to pay off?
The real question is, in 20 years will there still be enough people like you and me left for schools to even consider assigning the book?
0
0
-
34
Kokopelli52
in January 8th, 2009 @ 23:33That would depend on whether we do read the books or not. It also depends on whether the next generation can grow up to appreciate the books, which means that the current generation has to have a few people who read and liked the books, or no one on the school boards will even know they exist. If parents teach their kids to like the books, then the kids will pass that on, but at some point everything will be outdated. Most people, given the choice, would choose a book that they can relate to, or one that has absolutely nothing to do with our world, but not a book that was written hundreds of years ago, simply because the book has nothing to do with computers, or magic, or technology. In summary, unless we read the books no one else will.
0
0
-
35
bookgirl_me (finally back from America and missing it all ready, but happy to be back online)
in January 9th, 2009 @ 02:5126) What’s your definition of sanity ?
0
0
-
36
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak
in January 9th, 2009 @ 16:1435- Being able to pretend that you like society and being able to see it’s flaws at the same time. No i dont really know, I’m just making it up.
0
0
-
37
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 9th, 2009 @ 16:59On the topic of reading old books in class, my class suffers from a severe deficiency of reading books published over 25 years ago, but it’s only 6th grade so I’ll forgive them. The teacher has a very nice complete works of shakespeare though, and sometimes i read it, mostly during indoor recess. From what i’ve read, i would agree with the diagnosis in post 31.
0
0
-
38
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in January 9th, 2009 @ 17:1037- Why must “good” books be old? They were written as a response to their time, which sometimes can be used in our modern world, but their is nothing wrong with modern works of ltterature.
0
0
-
39
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 9th, 2009 @ 18:01They aren’t necessarily. Old books only comprise perhaps a fifth of my total reading material, and there are plenty of perfectly terrible old books. However, the general populace of snipville elementary have taken things to the other extreme.
0
0
-
40
YodaShomda
in January 9th, 2009 @ 18:0438- I don’t think they were saying only old books can be good. I think though that we don’t remeber the bad old books so that the good old books are most remembered and veiwed as classics. We all agree newer books can be awsome but old books must be respected too and some people don’t do that. that could have been really long and rambling and hard to follow. Sorry.
0
0
-
41
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak!
in January 9th, 2009 @ 18:4238- In which case, what modern books would you consider good. Remember, the definition is “written in a response to thier time” so Twilight isn’t an answer
0
0
-
42
Dodecahedron
in January 9th, 2009 @ 22:18Apologies in advance for mini-essay
books- My mother says when I argue with the English teacher that she’s trying to teach us that there’s an accepted interpretation, not teach us to analyze literature. It doesn’t change that Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies are both unrealistic to the point where I have no sympathy for them. But it’s supposed to be teaching me something by forcing me to read them, and it maybe doesn’t matter so much what the books are and if they’re old. (I think it’s Scholasticism and bad, but then again I’m a humanist and yesterday I outlined a chapter for history on the Renaissance so all these terms are stuck in my head begging to be used)
I have some kind of respect for old books before I read them, but if I read them and they’re not good, I don’t accept that just because they’re old. If my classmates don’t care enough to read them, their loss. It won’t change the currriculum, though.I read more fiction than nonfiction, so a lot of the fantasy’s not written in response to the time. Maybe Kurt Vonnegut? Oh! Cory Doctorow writes books and releases them under Creative Commons
[Hi, Dodecahedron. Sorry, I delinked that. But Doctorow’s Web site pops right up if you run a search with his name. So interested Musers can find it easily. — Rosanne]
and Little Brother is totally a response to government surveillance and modern technology. Or something, but I like it a lot.
Why do good books have to be socially relevant?
and, completely off topic but it was what I was thinking when I saw the thread, which Greek philosopher is your favorite: Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle?
Because I absolutely love Aristotle but I have to give some respect to Plato for inspiring Hylaea in Anathem (book by Neal Stephenson; it’s epic and long and pretty awesome) even though I don’t like the Theory of Forms.
0
0
-
43
The Man For Aeiou
in January 10th, 2009 @ 15:1042- anathem is to long.
0
0
-
44
Dodecahedron
in January 10th, 2009 @ 17:4843- What is “too long”? It’s less than a thousand pages in my hardcover version (~930, I think. penguini has it now so I can’t go look.) and it doesn’t have large amounts of obvious filler. It wasn’t boring at all.
I don’t think I’ve ever read a book that was too long.
0
0
-
45
Lizzie
in January 10th, 2009 @ 19:2944 – moby dick? Also, I completely love Neal Stephenson’s writing – have you read Cryptonomicon?
0
0
-
46
The Man For Aeiou
in January 10th, 2009 @ 19:4144- It’s longer then my math book. I can’t pick it up.
0
0
-
47
Piggy
in January 10th, 2009 @ 20:30Apparently we know more about books than philosophy. *sigh* This thread didn’t turn out as I had been hoping.
0
0
-
48
Dodecahedron
in January 10th, 2009 @ 21:4845- I love Cryptonomicon. I almost turned that post into a comparison of the two (Cryptonomicon‘s only 918 pages long in the hardcover version, although my version is a paperback that’s like 1148 pages. It goes on more tangents than Anathem, too.)
Also, I haven’t read Moby Dick. Because I heard it was boring…46- It makes me sad that there are textbooks smaller than Anathem.
47- sorry about being off topic. I would propose a new topic except I don’t have any lines of philosophical inquiry I wish to pursue right now. what do you suggest?
0
0
-
49
The Man For Aeiou
in January 10th, 2009 @ 23:19Race: Does it exist, or is it a construct?
0
0
-
50
Orophin, guardian of the Dimrill-Lorien border
in January 11th, 2009 @ 02:08It exists because people have constructed it- but what’s your definition of race? Does it go by background, cultural background, looks, or locational origin?
0
0
-
51
public like a frog (34 wung points!)
in January 12th, 2009 @ 20:33In my opinion, race exists to a small degree in genetics but to a far greater degree as a construct.
0
0
-
52
YodaShmoda
in January 13th, 2009 @ 14:57Race is somthing that we think of only in our minds. We make it so that we can fit in whereever we go. Race people think that it’s just color and country. I think it’s more than that. I think it’s the people you are most comfertable with. A girl from Agentina gets thrown into a hut in China. No one knows who she is and she’s brought up Chinaesse. I think she would be Asian after that.
This is somthing my camp counseler told me:
“I was called a few years ago. It was the Census people. They asked me a whole bunch of questions. The one they had the biggest problem with wasn’ t that hard to understand at all
Them: And what’s your race sir?
Me: Human
Them: Sir, we are looking for Caucasion, or Hispanic
Me: Yes, I know, I’m human.”
I think that’s an important thing to know.
And As much as I love books, save it for the books and reading thread.
0
0
-
53
small but fierce
in January 13th, 2009 @ 21:419- Perhaps I didn’t phrase that last one correctly. In my opinion, you are tied down by stereotypes and others’ expectations, and when you be yourself and do not conform to people’s wishes and what’s “hot” or “popular”, you are free from boundaries and are not obligated (for lack of a better word) to be who others want you to be. Then, you can do what you feel like and not worry that others will mercilessly tease you about being goth just because there are a lot of cute clothes in black. THERE ARE CUTE CLOTHES IN BLACK! As you can see, it’s getting a bit personal here. You just shouldn’t conform to people’s standards if that’s not who you are. Unfortunately, half my school wears the same clothes and acts like clones of the popular people. I’m not one of them.
0
0
-
54
Tesseract
in January 13th, 2009 @ 22:07I believe in culture, not race. Any differences between race are (besides minute genetic differences) products of different cultures. In fact, all race really is, is the way people look and the region they’re from; what people associate with race is culture.
0
0
-
55
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak!
in January 14th, 2009 @ 14:24I’m taking this from the Homework 911 thread. How can it be said that a country “Won” a war, or lost it. In the case of Vietnam I beleive that the Americans lost more than the Vietnamese won. They just weren’t as prepared.
Examples would be nice, from other wars.
0
0
-
56
Theetlet
in January 15th, 2009 @ 09:4849- I think that race is only a boundary and a difference to those who are prejudiced. People of different races, although they have a right to be proud of their past, should not have steriotypical lables because of their skin color or accent. For instance, going all the way back to slavery in America, black people were treated as no better than dogs, as if they were not our fellow human beings. I don’t know why so many white people think they are better than other races, when if things had gone differently, it could have been that white people were enslaved in Aftica, and that black people were prejudiced about them. When it comes down to it, anyone who judges by either race or gender does not really understand that to critisize someone for such things is a equal to critisizing someone of your own gender or race.
0
0
-
57
YodaShmoda
in January 15th, 2009 @ 16:18Everyone loses in a war, because, sure you get land and people and money and who knows what but you don’t get the lives back.
0
0
-
58
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak!
in January 15th, 2009 @ 21:1757- But what are the requirements? Obviously surrender, but… it’s hard to explain. It’s like that essay I had to write. Did we lose or did they win? Did they overpower us or did we give up? Us losing allows for some hope that we might have won. What is your definition of that?
0
0
-
59
bookgirl_me
in January 16th, 2009 @ 15:03*snores*
57) The money has to come from somewhere (i.e. the other country). WW2 for instance, was the consequence (or at least fueled by) WW1.
58) *cynically* I’d say both countries beat the cake out of each other until there was only the people who came out bad and those who came out worse. I’ll read up on it though- it would be interesting to study history in a country that usually wins as opposed to one that loses constantly.
0
0
-
60
YodaShmoda
in January 21st, 2009 @ 18:40Kk. Dead thread alert. Wake up thread!
So question: Who are we? Taken from a question The Bookworm and Lurine asked retoricaly on the Hot Topics thread. But really, who are we?
0
0
-
61
Dodecahedron
in January 23rd, 2009 @ 19:13We are our genetics through the filter of our experiences.
This is a really vague question. What do you mean by “we”? MuseBloggers? Americans? Homo sapiens? What are you intending to ask with “who”? It could mean lots of things, e.g. What are our cultural norms? What do we believe in? What is the stereotype of us? How do we react to things, and why?
0
0
-
62
YodaShmoda
in January 23rd, 2009 @ 19:54Who are we? As in: What defines who we are? Our looks? Our friends? Our Genes? Our dreams? Our social standing? Our hopes? Our histroy? Our achivments?
0
0
-
63
bookgirl_me
in January 24th, 2009 @ 03:2762) All of the above, except achievements. I think achievements have nothing to do with who you are.
P.S: I want you for the WOPC thread !
0
0
-
64
greekgurl the Latin speaking geek freak!
in January 24th, 2009 @ 11:2862- I really think you all should go out and read “Status Anxiety” by Alain de Botton. Go.
0
0
-
65
Dodecahedron
in January 30th, 2009 @ 14:21I would like to be defined by my actions and achievements, and by my friends. But that isn’t the way society works, and I don’t expect that.
I am defined by everything that you have listed, and everything that I make public about myself. The things I don’t make public, as well, if you know them.
0
0
-
66
Thanks For All The Fish42
in March 1st, 2009 @ 08:42DEAD THREAD!!!!!
I was looking around for new threads, and this one is DEAD!!!
Would anyone like to try and start it again?
0
0
-
67
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 11th, 2009 @ 15:35My philosophy is mainly that I should be nice, and revenge leads to yuckness. That’s what you get when you watch too many musicals.
Also a 5th grade teacher who believed in karma.
0
0
-
67.1
Enceladus
in September 14th, 2009 @ 16:58Ahem. It’s changed now.
I am utterly sure of my existence, but not for the reason Descartes was.
Why I’m sure that I exist:1: All you can tell about the world is by perceptions
2: Perceptions cannot exist without a perceiver*
3: To be a perceiver, you must exist
4: I perceive
Therefore, I am a perciever, therefore, I existWhy I think it’s most likely that the world is not as I observe it
1: There is only one way for the world to be the way I observe it
2: There are infinitely many ways that the world is not as I observe it**
Therefore, it is most likely that the world is not as I observe it.I figure, as long as there is a possibility of this world being what I perceive it to be, which there is, then I should behave morally. What moraly is, I’m not sure about.
*There can be no red without something to see red.
**I could be a brain in a jar, with electrodes going into me, I could be in the Matrix, I could be on an elaborate Holodeck simulation, it goes on and on.
0
0
-
67.1.1
Piggy
in September 14th, 2009 @ 17:13Okay, so you perceive that perceptions must have a perceiver. But you also believe your perceptions are probably wrong. Does that not mean that it is probable perceptions don’t need a perceiver? The trouble with perception is that, if you believe perceptions to be inaccurate, all your philosophy you also admit to be inaccurate. Such is philosophy, I’m afraid.
0
0
-
67.1.1.1
Enceladus
in May 19th, 2010 @ 17:46However, what I perceive must exist in some form or other, otherwise one could not observe it. Perception cannot be completely accurate, but it is accurate enough for beings to survive. Perceptions must reflect something in the environment around us, otherwise, there would be no cause, and there cannot be uncaused events.
0
0
-
67.1.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 19:03Perceptions don’t have to reflect the environment at all. What about hallucinations?
0
0
-
67.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus
in May 19th, 2010 @ 19:11They’re caused by something- lack of sleep, drugs, mental problems. Hallucinations are still caused by something.
0
0
-
67.1.1.1.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 20:17As you perceive reality, perception indicates reality. But perception is never perfect, as you’ve said. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the existence of reality is false.
0
0
-
67.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus
in May 24th, 2010 @ 19:54There must be a cause for perception. There can be nothing that is not caused by anything. Reality must exist.
0
0
-
68
Cat's Eye
in May 19th, 2010 @ 20:28My philosophy: Don’t worry. Be happy. Don’t do what you should, do what makes you happy. Living for tomorrow every day won’t make you happy, because you won’t be paying attention when the tomorrow you lived for turns into a today you don’t want. Follow your dreams, and don’t worry about the consequences. Happiness is the goal of life; if one is unhappy, there’s no point. However, altruism often leads to happiness for the altruistic one, so making others happy makes you happy too. If one does something that makes them unhappy, it should only be to achieve happiness in the long term which one will then enjoy when it is achieved.
Don’t worry, be happy… *walks off snapping fingers*
0
0
-
68.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 20:33Epicureanism.
0
0
-
68.1.1
Cat's Eye
in May 19th, 2010 @ 21:12Mm, kinda. To be happy and pacifistic all the time would be boring in the long term. A lack of happiness in others should cause unhappiness in one’s self if one has a sense of social justice or empathy, and a desire to bring another person happiness. In other words, unhappiness is totally justifiable in some situations. Also, from what I’ve read of Epicureanism, it seems to advocate a life of not caring about evil, which isn’t part of my philosophy. There are some things worth fighting for, after all (though I do believe violence should be the last option, and fighting in other ways is usually preferable).
0
0
-
68.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 21:35You’re being contradictory. “Follow your dreams, and don’t worry about the consequences.” “Don’t do what you should, do what makes you happy.” But then you say, “Unhappiness is totally justifiable in some situations.” The consequences of any action can bring future happiness or unhappiness. You say to not worry about the consequences. But then you say it is justified to carry out an unhappy action for the sake of future consequences. Maybe I’m reading what you’ve said incorrectly, but this seems inconsistent.
0
0
-
68.1.1.1.1
Cat's Eye
in May 19th, 2010 @ 23:07One shouldn’t purposefully bring unhappiness to oneself through one’s actions, but it is justifiable to feel unhappiness at the unhappiness of others.
I don’t understand how following your dreams is contradictory to doing something unhappy in the short term. In some situations short-term happiness is more worth pursuing, and in some it’s worth it to sacrifice the short term for the long term. It all depends on the situation.
0
0
-
68.1.1.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 23:21What do you define as “happiness”?
0
0
-
68.1.1.1.1.1.1
Cat's Eye
in May 20th, 2010 @ 08:46The quality of being happy, or being in a situation that by your standards would make you happy normally. For instance, you can be happy for no reason at all, or you can be happy because you just ate a slice of cake, or you can be happy because you have just completed a project that took a really long time, or you can be happy because you have spent your whole adult life attempting not to go broke and it’s working so far. Short-term happiness is usually something like the first two, and long-term something like the last two. It all depends on the situation if you want to sacrifice doing a project for eating cake, or eating cake for doing a project. In most situations, people choose what they think they should do (usually the project) instead of what they want to do (often, the cake. My philosophy is, eat cake if you really want cake. If you really care about the project, do the project. Do what makes you happy.
0
0
-
68.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 20th, 2010 @ 14:41You can’t define a word with itself. What is “happy”? What is “happiness”? You have to define these, not just use a slightly modified version of the word to explain it. Happiness is a vague concept.
0
0
-
68.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Cat's Eye
in May 20th, 2010 @ 20:12I define “happy” vaguely because I’m assuming that my audience has experienced happiness at one point or another in their lives. I realize that that’s still not very helpful, since “experienced happiness” is also pretty vague, so since I ought to be getting to my homework right now I’ll steal Wikipedia’s def and call it “a state of mind or feeling characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy”.
0
0
-
69
Enceladus
in May 24th, 2010 @ 19:57How could one make the perfect society? Could one make the perfect society? Would modifications to humans be necessary? What makes a world perfect? Would a world where we do what we’re told, and never question anything be perfect? Would anarchy be perfect? Marxism? 1984? Anthem? Brave New World?
0
0
-
69.1
Piggy
in May 24th, 2010 @ 20:11How do you define a “perfect society”?
0
0
-
69.1.1
Enceladus
in May 26th, 2010 @ 05:22That’s what I’m asking you.
0
0
-
70
Enceladus
in October 10th, 2010 @ 06:52Can we have a new Philosophy thread? Please, GAPAs?
0
0
-
70.1
Piggy
in October 10th, 2010 @ 08:49Why don’t we use this one? I don’t see why we would need a new one. Being on the front page doesn’t bring more comments.
0
0
-
70.1.1
Enceladus
in October 10th, 2010 @ 09:45True.
Anyway, the reason I wanted this revived is because I want a philosophical debate on how we define things. Are objects defined by what they do? What they’re meant to do? What they are? Their names?
I personally believe that things are defined by what they do. A novelist can only be a novelist, if they write novels, one isn’t a novelist if they only write short stories.
This may bring up a few interesting points- as persons are beings that think, does that mean the someone conventionally referred to as a “person” who doesn’t think and put their brain to use isn’t a person? Also, does it mean that a broken clock is not a clock? At first glance, the answer would seem to be yes, from my philosophy’s view. A broken clock does none of the things that a clock does, therefore it cannot be a clock.
Some objections to this would be that this means a sleeping person is not a person. Or a person in a coma. However, because it is possible for them to do what a person does, it makes them a person. This means that a broken clock, is in fact a clock. It is simply a clock that does not do what a clock does at the moment. However, if the clock was unfixable, for example, it was put inside an unbreakable safe, it would not be a clock. There is no possibility that it would do what a clock does, therefore it is not a clock. This is also what makes people not clocks- we could never keep an accurate time device going for that long.
I’m sorry if that was completely incoherent. I’ll try and refine my arguments as I get more and more awake.
0
0
-
71
Anomylous
in December 15th, 2010 @ 00:45So… I came up with something moderately mind-blowing today, which seems like a pretty philosophical kind of thing.
Why does the universe exist?
Because it has to! If the universe didn’t exist, there would be nothing. Obvious. But here’s the catch – in order for there to be nothing, there has to be something to compare it to. Something that’s not nothing. Right?
So, “before” the universe existed (time is kind of irrelevant in this context, I’m just using it as metaphor to explain this more clearly), there was nothing, but because there can’t be nothing without there being something, something came into existence, and the universe was born.
I admit that I may have stumbled into a logic loop somewhere, and it doesn’t make that much sense at first. But think about it…
0
0
-
71.1
Enceladus
in December 15th, 2010 @ 05:38But nothing can’t exist. It is the absense of things. An absence of everything could not cause something to pop into existence.
I actually had an idea similar to this a while ago. I eventually decided that this argument is fairly fallacious because: Nothing can exist without something, it just means there can’t possibly be any comparison. It is simply the idea of nothing that needs a comparison. And there certainly was no comparison at the beginning of the universe.
Essentially: Having something to compare to nothing is not a sufficient cause for something to exist, because it is our ideas of nothing that would need a comparison.
0
0
-
71.1.1
Anomylous
in December 15th, 2010 @ 13:02You define “nothing” very well, as “the absence of things”. But the point is that there would be no things to be absent, so you can’t have nothing.
Your point about the idea of nothing as opposed to the existence of nothing might be a good one, though…
0
0
-
71.1.1.1
Enceladus
in December 15th, 2010 @ 13:58Eh, I think that nothing being the absence of things is a bit like saying something is the presence of things. It’s probably not that good a definition.
It’s possible that there’s no way to concieve of “nothing” in that we have only ever experienced existence, and any attempt to not experience it would mean that there would be no thing to experience nothing.
Ah, the confusion of vocabulary.
0
0
-
71.1.1.2
Cat's Eye
in December 15th, 2010 @ 20:32It’s a common confusion that there’s a thing called “something”, which is things that exist, and a thing called “nothing”, which is a synonym for “void” or “vacuum”. Nothing does not exist, because there is nothing in nothing to exist in the first place. That’s why it’s so hard to talk about it; because the semantics are horribly confusing.
0
0
-
71.2
Cat's Eye
in December 15th, 2010 @ 09:08Let’s compare this to numbers. Your question is like asking, “Why does three exist?” (Now, numbers in as of themselves are human constructs designed to help us wrap our brains around an exact certain quantity without having to do too much mental work, but that’s not the point.) Your answer to “why does three exist” is somewhere close to “because if it didn’t, there would be nothing between two and four, and there IS something between two and four, so three obviously exists.” And now you’re saying that outside of the usual number spectrum, there is zero, but there can’t be zero without there being a three to compare it with, so three exists.
The thing is, there’s no cause and effect there. Zero did not cause three to be born. You can’t think of nothing as a cause for anything, as in “nothing made the universe happen in order for there to be something to compare nothing with”, because nothing can’t cause anything. The very definition of nothing is zero, and the definition of zero is a lack of. When we say there’s nothing outside the universe, we don’t mean there’s some nothing-y void-y stuff. We mean that the universe is all there is, and outside the universe there are zero things, a complete lack of anything at all.
So “before” the universe existed (or outside the universe in terms of space, either), there was a lack of universe, and that lack of universe persisted until the universe existed. There is still a lack of universe in places that are not the universe, but to say “there is no universe in places where there is no universe” is redundant, so there’s no point in saying that.
If a lack of universe “before” the universe existed caused a universe to exist, wouldn’t a lack of universe “outside” the universe cause another universe to exist? But that doesn’t make sense, because the very definition of “universe” is “everything that there is”, and if there’s more than everything that there is, then the bunch of stars and nebulae and planets and black holes and empty space where we live is not the universe. Instead, it’s just a set of coordinates in space and time.
Huh. That’s a thought. If your theory about zero causing numbers to exist can be proved, then it could lead to a proof of the multiverse theory.
0
0
-
72
Bibliophile
in May 28th, 2011 @ 21:46Squee! This looks awesome!
1: I don’t know. Someone should raise a pair of identical twins separately and very differently to see how different they become–or better yet, identical triplets–one in a normal environment, one exposed to more socialness than usual, and one raised completely away from society by very strange people. Then we’d have an answer.
2: Who, me? I think I’m relatively free. I don’t have too many physical restrictions on what I can and can’t do compared to most people. Of course, I sometimes wish I had superhuman powers, but I’m pretty free for someone without them. I don’t think it’s possible for everyone to be completely free if there are more than one organism, though–even if there are no recorded laws, there will be unspoken rules like those in nature: If you are not nearly as strong as those around you, for example, and they’re hungry, society doesn’t care whether or not you have the right to life, because so do they, and it’s impossible to live without food for very long. But wait, what if there’s a God? Well, yes, I suppose that if there is an all-powerful God, En is completely free. If God exists but is at the mercy of the natural laws, though, and he created the universe, En would have given up his freedom when En did so. That sounds noble… But then, come to think of it, before the universe was created (if it was created), God wouldn’t have been free to create the universe without sacrificing freedom, so En wouldn’t be entirely free in the first place. I don’t think it’s possible to be completely free without being all-powerful. That’s too bad.
7: For what? I won’t give up anything for no reason, but I would give the worse half of the universe to save the better half, even if Earth is on the worse half.
9: The point isn’t to break certain laws, which would be a restriction, but to ignore the laws. Do whatever you want. On the other hand, if you follow a law, it’s because you want to, isn’t it? I think laws are irrelevant here.
11: But we wouldn’t know what to eat, since that’s learned and not instinct… which really just gives evidence to your point, emphasis on the ‘looking’ bit. Some of the more intelligent species would probably figure it out eventually. But on the other hand, who’s to say we’d need food? Natural laws? Yeah, right.
12: I already mentioned law. I don’t think it restricts freedom much. It does restrict fate–or does fate restrict it? If fate even exists? Does fate have a cause? Is it the cause of all things? Is it irrelevant? I don’t know of any way to find out. I think fate exists (Whether or not things are predetermined, there is a way the the future will turn out, whether or not anyone knows it. Thus, that’s not a factor in my view on fate, so the only thing I have to go on is time travel, and my beliefs about that convince me that fate probably exists in some form), but I don’t really care. I’m a Compatibilist, so it doesn’t make a difference to my view of the world. Anyway, a law changes occurrences, but the people are free to obey it or not. They aren’t free to disobey it without known consequences, but sometimes known consequences are better than unknown ones, and we already know that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I don’t think laws are more restricting than anything else in this world except free will. Maybe. Even free will could be said to restrict itself; it prevents you from acting randomly, and if there is an omnipotent God controlling occurrences, and fate does not exist, then our free will restricts Ens. That’s a scary thought. Anyway, my point is, it’s impossible to be completely free without being omnipotent. At least, I think that’s my point. That statement doesn’t answer your question, but the long version does. I hope. America is called The Land of the Free because its people greatly value freedom and have more of it than many countries.
13: Sometimes people think of the same thing by coincidence, though.
16: Partly because they support those rights (some governments don’t) and partially because they want people to support them.
21: Yes, of course, why shouldn’t there be?
22: All humans have both good and bad in them, but some humans are better than other humans.
24: How do you define bad? I think of ‘bad’ as ‘morally wrong,’ at least for the most part (there are other bad things, like stupidity), but others disagree. People can’t even agree on the definition of ‘morally wrong!’ Speaking of which, I’m utilitarian. Anyway, let’s assume that bad means morally wrong, and I’ll let you figure out what that means. Ethologists list 4 types of social behavior: Egoistic, cooperative, altruistic, and revengeful. Egoistic behaviors have a positive effect on the donor but a negative effect on the receiver. I believe that this is instinctual. Everyone wants to benefit from what they do. Cooperative behavior benefits the donor and recipient. Altruistic behavior hinders the behaver and helps the receiver. Revengeful harms both of them. The last 2 can give the donor satisfaction, of course, but that’s all.
Egoism, in my opinion, is usually but not necessarily bad (depending on how much you benefit and how much the others suffer–and if you think you disagree, you’re incorrect, because I hear you’ve eaten at least once in your life). It is obviously instinctual at least most of the time. Cooperation (which is never bad)… is a grey area. I think it’s sometimes instinctual, but you sometimes have to think about it. It depends. It’s also irrelevant, though. Altruism is almost always good, and revenge is always bad with no exceptions at all, but both are clearly learned and make no sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
30: I think it depends on the book. Some are outdated, some aren’t.
62: I think our thoughts define us. Unfortunately, people can’t see others’ thoughts, so the most logical way to define people is by their actions.
63: I agree with your first sentence, but I think that who we are affects our achievements, so they can help give insight into who we are if analyzed enough.
65: A society that defined people by their friends would be very harsh on strange people with low social skills, even more than ours is. I can’t even imagine how horrible it would be for me.
67.1 and replies: How do you know that you’re not all that reality contains? If you don’t trust your perceptions, you’ve no evidence that anyone else can perceive. If nothing else exists, and you’re alive, clearly you need nothing to survive. By your argument, your perceptions might not be influenced by anything at all.
69: I think a perfect society would be one where everyone would be perfect, comfortable, and joyous. Since there is no way to make everyone perfect, the only way to make a perfect society would, in my opinion, be to be a psychopath, kill every person, animal, and carnivorous plant in the world, suddenly reform, get over regret, and become perfect. That’s not likely.
70.1.1: I think it depends on the person. I define things by what they are. It works well. Rose is a rose is a rose, even if it’s a petunia.
0
0
-
72.1
Bibliophile
in June 24th, 2012 @ 14:59I don’t agree with all of that anymore. I’ll list the post I still agree with my replies to and make replacement replies in separate posts for the rest.
Things my mind hasn’t changed on: 1, 2 (although I’m convinced now that there is no creator, personally), 7, 9, 16, 22, 30, 63 (I was trying to say that there’s a correlation but not a causation), 65.
0
0
-
72.2
Agent Lightning
in June 24th, 2012 @ 19:581. Actually, that has been done: seperating identical twins at birth. I read about it in a National Geographic article once.
0
0
-
73
Maths Lover ♥
in January 2nd, 2012 @ 01:55*pokes thread*
I think old books are considered to be better because it’s the better (or ones that were considered better by a previous society) ones that are well known to us, while it’s relatively easy to hear about and read less popular modern books so of course we’re more familiar with them. I think part of it is also it makes some people superior to like old books- I feel quite accomplished when I read an older book and like it in spite of the language and values dissonance.
Your race is determined by genetics, from your ancestors who originated in a particular place. Your culture and race are different- someone can belong to a different culture than their parents. The two are definitely linked, but one doesn’t determine the other.
I don’t think we could create a perfect society. If we didn’t all agree with each other, what would happen? If the society was religiously tolerant, would that stop members of a minority religion feeling alienated by the majority? Would the majority feel the minority was getting too much attention for their size? Would we have to choose between controlling who could have children and how, and not getting rid of hereditary diseases? If was democratic, how would we keep it that way? If there was a different government, how would we make sure they remained good?
0
0
-
73.1
Maths Lover ♥
in June 24th, 2012 @ 20:40*it makes some people feel superior…
Actually, maybe humanity could create a perfect society. It just seems highly unlikely, especially in the near future. I’m not sure how unlikely.
If our perceptions are wrong, how do we know that a perceiver must exist? Does our logic even work?
I’d say that who we are is mostly our conscious thoughts. I also think that the thoughts we know are wrong and conciously disagree with for that reason don’t define our morality. Obviously what we intentionally do is important, but thinking about X in private helps define who we are even if we don’t act on X, since it means we consider thinking about X more important than (or have a mental illness causing us to think about X) doing something like Y. But things beyond our control can still change who we are, and what we do.
I’m not entirely sure about that topic.There are also things I just don’t know, like what the meaning of life is or whether I’d want immortality if I could have it. I also feel fear thinking about existing forever, but since I can’t understand what that would actually be like it’s hard to make a decision. I definitely don’t want to die anytime soon, and feel fear thinking about the universe eventually no longer being able to sustain life, and so there’s the MOR!Harry argument that that if I continue to feel that way, I’ll never want to die, so I must want the alternative.
Wow, I just managed to type that without panicking. That’s unusual for me.
0
0
-
73.1.1
Oobatooba
in August 22nd, 2012 @ 14:03On the subject of use being our most conscious thoughts and all that, I think that the whole idea of thoughts that you know to be wrong brings up some interesting questions. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about whether or not your thoughts about how you could be a different person are part of you. I think that at some point, someone gave me the advice to “just be myself”, and I started wondering if it was being myself to want to do things differently. It must be a part of myself to want to do things better, right? And people do change, so the ways that they change how they act must still be them, but then is there a difference between trying to improve and acting as some artificial person who isn’t you? And is there a difference other than that I think of one of them as a good thing and the other one as a bad thing?
On the subject of living forever, I agree with Maths Lover that I don’t want to die soon, so I probably want the alternative, but one the scale of the whole world, if you think about other people also living forever, either everyone would have to live forever and it would lead to huge overpopulation problems, or I would be the only one to live forever, and I would probably feel horribly guilty that I got to live forever and other people had to die. Ignoring that, though, I don’t worry about living forever being boring. I guess I might be putting too much trust in my powers of creativity, but I feel like every time that I have an interesting idea, by the time I’ve finished fleshing it out, I have a number more good ideas, and I feel like I could keep myself entertained forever off of a fractal of interesting philosophical tangents. Then again, maybe in a finite universe at some point you would run out of things, it’s just that it’s a very large some point…
0
0
-
73.1.2
Bibliophile
in August 23rd, 2012 @ 12:25I think a perfect society is impossible because of death. No society can be perfect with it, and I think getting rid of it is extremely impractical.
Re: “If our perceptions are wrong, how do we know that a perceiver must exist? Does our logic even work?” If you think about it, the statement, “Perceptions must have a perceiver,” is not based on perceptions. Therefore, the accuracy of our perceptions does not affect the accuracy of that statement.
Enc made a good point about our perceptions probably being wrong. If you only count our conscious perceptions, I can offer more support for it. Effects such as change blindness and inattentive blindness prove that either A) Some of our conscious perceptions are wrong or B) several laws of physics are different than we thought. A is more likely than B. Even if you’re one of those rare individuals who doesn’t have inattentive blindness or change blindness, you it proves that either A) Some people’s conscious perceptions are wrong, which makes it more likely that yours are or B) There’s a huge conspiracy to try to convince people not to trust their senses. Again, A’s more likely. But let’s say we accept that some of our perceptions are inaccurate. Apart from a few leads like the gorilla experiment, we can’t predict what those are (except, again, for a few leads), much less how we should act in them (apart from if-then statements like). Furthermore, the more similar a possible reality is to what our senses tell us about it, the more parsimonious it is, so what our senses tell us is at least more likely than any individual alternative, even if it’s less likely than the sum of its alternatives. So we might as well act as if our senses are correct because that gives us a better chance of being right than anything else.
I think that the self is a subjective concept and that we all define ourselves differently. I currently think of myself as my conscious thoughts, but I’m trying to expand my sense of self for personal convenience.
I’m sure I’d never run out of things to do if I lived forever. Ooba makes a good point, though, about overpopulation. My position on that used to be, “Well, we should be able to live forever, but only if we get spayed or neutered first, so that won’t be an issue,” but now I think even that doesn’t solve the problem completely. I don’t only value humans, and making them immortal would give them an unfair advantage–they’d last forever, so no matter what they did to the rest of the living world, it’d have to just endure it. So should we make them immortal, too? But what if that’s not what they want? With humans, we can ask them whether they’d be willing to never have children in order to live forever; we can’t ask other organisms. They probably don’t even have a concept of immortality. They do tend to avoid situations that will cause their death when recognize them, but the exceptions are notable. For instance, you may know that female black widows eat their mates. You probably haven’t heard that the male black widow doesn’t show any sign of resistance to being eaten. This makes evolutionary sense: if your mate starves before getting the chance to lay eggs, she can’t pass on your genes. Males who aren’t eaten would hypothetically live long enough to mate with many females, but it wouldn’t matter if they all die before laying eggs. I’m not saying it’s a conscious choice, of course, but it still indicates that to black widows, having children is more important than longevity. So let’s say we do make only humans immortal: there are other problems than unfairness. What would happen to us when all other species went extinct? We couldn’t die of starvation or oxygen depletion, but we would certainly suffer. Starving forever is not something anyone will want. So unless we figure out the secrets of living without food and making our own oxygen efficiently, or we find another planet, getting rid of death is just not practical. And since the problem I just mentions applies to individuals as much as all humanity, I wouldn’t want to make just myself immortal, either.
If we find a way around all these difficulties, I would consider immortality worth thinking about. I just don’t think it’s at all likely that we’ll ever do all that. Maybe it’s reasonable to have yourself cryonically suspended just in case, like MOR’s author (who I consider way too optimistic about the whole venture–I hate death, too, but even if we figured out how to prevent it, immortality is basically the most impractical thing ever) is doing, but I don’t want to give up the certainty of having my body help others even when I’m not in it (There are plenty of ways this could happen; I could donate my body to science or medicine or have it feed endangered vultures or fertilize endangered plants, etc.) for the extreme improbability of a better option coming up some day.
As for the meaning of life, I think that’s kind of a pointless question, because it depends on how you define ‘meaning.’ According to one dictionary, in the context of this question, it’s, “the end, purpose, or significance of something,” Well, I don’t see any evidence that anyone created me or you an end or purpose. I do have my own ends and purposes, based on my emotions. You probably do, too. So that could be the meaning of life in a sense, but then the meaning of my life is different from the meaning of yours. Neither is objectively better than another, because they’re based on emotions, which are subjective, although I’d prefer it if other people’s lives had the same meaning as mine so that I’d have some help in accomplishing it (and therefore be able to do it more efficiently).
0
0
