Archived Philosophy Thread

[Kusachu]

How do I know i am not being tricked by an evil genius (MFG! IT'S ITACHI! )??  How do i know I'm not in a pod (MFG! It's Zetsu! )?  XD 


Dude, wtf is up with people freaking out over the notion of determinism?  I don't get it.  There are always a few of them in class who voilently reject anything that is even remotely associated with determinism.  They are bent on having absolute free will at all costs.  I don't get it at all.  What is so scary about having an ultimate destiny as aposed to choosing it?  I bet they feel exactly the same.

 

[Adam_xx]

A Basic Law of Science...

#Never spit into the wind

 

[Rampages]

I agree with Kusachu on determinism. Some people fear the concept, so they refuse to acknowledge the content.

 

[Kusachu]

A Basic Law of Science...

#Never spit into the wind

this is also true of pissing. XD

 

[Brede]

Age old sayings sometimes contradict each other. For e.g., how do you reconcile "2 heads are better than 1" or "The more the merrier" with "Too many cooks spoil the broth"?

I'm sure there are more instances of 'contradicting' sayings

 

[glasskatana]

I just thought of this randomly but I might as well post it here.
If life feels empty, at least there's a lot of room for oppurtunity.

 

[svart_lotus]

How do I know i am not being tricked by an evil genius (MFG! IT'S ITACHI! )?? How do i know I'm not in a pod (MFG! It's Zetsu! )? XD


Dude, wtf is up with people freaking out over the notion of determinism? I don't get it. There are always a few of them in class who voilently reject anything that is even remotely associated with determinism. They are bent on having absolute free will at all costs. I don't get it at all. What is so scary about having an ultimate destiny as aposed to choosing it? I bet they feel exactly the same.

Dont you think there is a destiny, but we have choice? Like The collective subconsciousness? We can follow our destiny or slowly fade away in our own ego.

 

[Leen]

Love is like a mountain
Its hard to climb
But when you finally conquer it
The view is wonderful.

Love is wonderful.

 

[svart_lotus]

Love is like a mountain
Its hard to climb
But when you finally conquer it
The view is wonderful.

Love is wonderful.

I agree, with some changes:

Love is like a mountain
You lose half of your friends on the way up
It gets harder to breath
When you get up there, you can stay there and die or go for the foot, either way you will tell your self that it was worth it.

Thats my experience. Maybe i over did it, but its pretty close to the truth

 

[siegfried]

Love is like a mountain
You lose half of your friends on the way up
It gets harder to breath
When you get up there, you can stay there and die or go for the foot, either way you will tell your self that it was worth it.

Thats my experience. Maybe i over did it, but its pretty close to the truth

absolutely agree.that is what I witnessed too.well not myself but from friends.

 

[Kusachu]

Dont you think there is a destiny, but we have choice? Like The collective subconsciousness? We can follow our destiny or slowly fade away in our own ego.

I look at it like this, if the notion of determinism is true, then choice is not ever going to be an option but i will never know the difference. I may tell myself that i choose things, but the reality is that choice would only be an illusion. If the opposite is true, then there is no possibilty of destiny and everything i experience is of my own chioce i will still never know the difference. I don't really believe in the "soft" determinism associated with the ontelogical argument. But i know quite a few people who insist that they are in control of every choice they make no matter what and harshly deny even the slightest hint of fate. I think it is because those people need to feel like they are in control and they don't alow themselves to see any other way than that because to do so would force them to acknowledge that they may not have control. [br]Posted on: May 30, 2006, 09:31:03 AM_________________________________________________on the subject of ego, Freud's notion of ego is the sense ourselves being an individual and what copes with the restrictions placed on us by "reality". The ego is simply the middle ground between our selfish survival 'instincts' (sex, food, shelter, rest) and our notions of morality (social traditions and belief systems). In such a case, i think it would be more dangerous to fade into ones Id or Super ego. People with Antisocial personality disorder lack a super ego to tell them what is right and what is wrong; hence they have no concept of compassion or empathy. They are entirely self serving individuals. There are problems with being too wrapped up in one's super ego as well. When i think of such a situation, it brings to mind religious fanatics, bigots, and a whole range of personality and mood disorders. Though, i am no expert on such things, so it really isn't my place to say. guh. My head hurts now...XP No more thinking for me!!

 

[svart_lotus]

I see it more like this: If there is something bigger then us, wouldent it be bored if it hade full controle? Like playing sims with full controle
I do belive there is something bigger then us, call it god, satan, Odin or anything els, but so far it points at the "World soul" or The collective subconsciousness, and if there is something bigger then we might have a purpose. But if it is for entertainment, then we have control, if it is a practical use, then we dont have control. But there is still a big chanse that we have a single purpose, and as long as whe have compleated that we can do what we want as long as it doesent interfer with the grand plan, right?

 

[glasskatana]

ah. How about we dicuss heaven hell etc.
In my opinion the best afterlife solution is reincarnation. Why? heaven just has flaws. What if you marry someone you love deeply and he/she dies. You are saddened and mourn, but eventually remarry another man/woman and then he/she dies/ You die. All three of you meet up in heaven. Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died? There are too many uncertanties. Also with reincarnation, all things become connected an affect eachother for all eternity. Plus the universe actually DOES reincarnate. When energy is used it is converted into unusable heat energy. This heat energy escapes into the universe. Eventually when all the energy of the entire universe is use and all mass has been converted into heat energy it will condense and form a super heavy form of energy that will explode... the big bang. We could be living in the 1,000,000th reincarnation of this universe.

 

[siegfried]

it is true that we dont know the reasons of our existinces.All religious people think that this world is a test for us but why we are we being tested?

are we the entertainments of our god?if he is the god shouldnt he not need to amuse himself?

according to my religion fate exits.but this doesnt mean we are controlled.god knows everything even before they occur according to his supremme sight.the things you are doing are your destiny but this doesnt mean you are doing things because of your destiny.for example we know when the eclipses are going to happen but they are not happening because we know them.

that is the essence of fate.but another question comes to mind ,if he knew all the things would happen even before he created the universe,why did he create it anyway?

we cant comprehend some issues and destiny is one of them.can you comprehend infinite?human mind is too incapable for these issues.[br]Posted on: 31 May 2006, 07:52:08_________________________________________________

ah. How about we dicuss heaven hell etc.
In my opinion the best afterlife solution is reincarnation. Why? heaven just has flaws. What if you marry someone you love deeply and he/she dies. You are saddened and mourn, but eventually remarry another man/woman and then he/she dies/ You die. All three of you meet up in heaven. Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died? There are too many uncertanties. Also with reincarnation, all things become connected an affect eachother for all eternity. Plus the universe actually DOES reincarnate. When energy is used it is converted into unusable heat energy. This heat energy escapes into the universe. Eventually when all the energy of the entire universe is use and all mass has been converted into heat energy it will condense and form a super heavy form of energy that will explode... the big bang. We could be living in the 1,000,000th reincarnation of this universe.

well big bang cant explain how can a living creature can be created out of nowhere so I dont consider it as a choice.I believe in heaven and hell.and you have a point in there.I finished "full moon wo sagashite" manga and thinking about those recently.it seems very comliplicated.when you die you will look like at the age when you are at your peak, this is what I infer from prophet Muhammed's words.but about the ones you love I dont think anybody can answer it.we will have to wait untill to the afterlife for the answer.

 

[cap14]

Heaven just has flaws . . . Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died?

A fair enough point - I agree that a lot of religions have flaws to some degree or another. No doubt it could be argued that the flaws are of our own making rather then an actual flaw of the religion itself. After all, the extent of our knowledge of a given religion comes from religious texts, which were written by mortal and therefore fallible hands.

I also think your perspectives are mixed up. Say you do have a child – they die. You die. You go to Heaven. When you meet up in Heaven, why then must you be constrained by physical form, in a purely spiritual existence?

There are also countless arguments that can be made against reincarnation as a viable truth. Take the number of people alive today: exponentially greater then were alive in, say, the 1500’s.
So where were all the souls alive today but not in the 1500’s? Of course, there are theory’s that suggest man can be reincarnated as an animal, if they lived a bad life for example, somewhat alleviating the numbers . . . but that in itself would make a profound statement about the nature of society. If there are more humans alive now, then that must mean we, as people, are morally better then we were back then. Maybe it’s true, but … the World Wars disagree.
Also the question about what constitutes a viable reincarnated form is raised: are cows and dogs viable? Maybe! But where do you draw the line? Does a yeast cell count? What about viral agents? If not, then what exactly are these things? Because the omissions make a bold statement about what it is to be alive.
I also think your statement about the big bang is based upon assumptions, not proofs. There’s currently no irrefutable evidence suggesting that the mass density of the universe is great enough to cause a re-collapse of the universe. Although from the sounds of things you might be talking about phase-transitions in the vacuum energy of space – are you?

Looking forward to all reply's Philosophy is fun, even though I can never grasp it.
Christophele's.

 

[glasskatana]

A fair enough point - I agree that a lot of religions have flaws to some degree or another. No doubt it could be argued that the flaws are of our own making rather then an actual flaw of the religion itself. After all, the extent of our knowledge of a given religion comes from religious texts, which were written by mortal and therefore fallible hands.

I also think your perspectives are mixed up. Say you do have a child – they die. You die. You go to Heaven. When you meet up in Heaven, why then must you be constrained by physical form, in a purely spiritual existence?

There are also countless arguments that can be made against reincarnation as a viable truth. Take the number of people alive today: exponentially greater then were alive in, say, the 1500’s.
So where were all the souls alive today but not in the 1500’s? Of course, there are theory’s that suggest man can be reincarnated as an animal, if they lived a bad life for example, somewhat alleviating the numbers . . . but that in itself would make a profound statement about the nature of society. If there are more humans alive now, then that must mean we, as people, are morally better then we were back then. Maybe it’s true, but … the World Wars disagree.
Also the question about what constitutes a viable reincarnated form is raised: are cows and dogs viable? Maybe! But where do you draw the line? Does a yeast cell count? What about viral agents? If not, then what exactly are these things? Because the omissions make a bold statement about what it is to be alive.
I also think your statement about the big bang is based upon assumptions, not proofs. There’s currently no irrefutable evidence suggesting that the mass density of the universe is great enough to cause a re-collapse of the universe. Although from the sounds of things you might be talking about phase-transitions in the vacuum energy of space – are you?

Looking forward to all reply's Philosophy is fun, even though I can never grasp it.
Christophele's.

Good and evil are merely perceptions put up by the mind to add order to an otherwise supposedly chaotic society. Unless you live in the world of Disney, most people that are considered villains, (hitler for example) did not believe thmselves villains. Who judges what is good and what is evil. The collective conscious and subconscious. As for reincarnatoin, why must you be reincarnated at once. Why must you be reincarnated in accordance to what you did in life. A man who steals is 'bad'. A man who steals a medicine to save his dying child is seen very differently. Reincarnation has it's flaws like all things. I find, and I have not been brought uo as a buddhist or under hinduism, that reincarnation has less flaws. Of course there's always the more logical alternative of we rot in the ground. Look closely at religious texts. The common 'thou shalt not kill' is often disregarded. Replaced by 'thou shalt not murder'. Murder and killing are two very different things. Murder is evil. Killing can be good or evil. The crusades were led by the pope(s) of the times. At the moment they were doing the work of god. In today's times, they would be viewed as evil. Funny how religion changes with society. I am thouroghly enjoying this.

well big bang cant explain how can a living creature can be created out of nowhere so I dont consider it as a choice.I believe in heaven and hell.and you have a point in there.I finished "full moon wo sagashite" manga and thinking about those recently.it seems very comliplicated.

Actually it can. Big bang started it all. After a couple... maybe trillion years, who knows, the Primordial soup happens (spelling?). It has been proven possible to run electricity through certain elements and end up forming a cell. It would take millions, maybe even billion of years however to form a functioning living cell. Not just it's components.
Again, I get a lot of enjoyment out of discussions like these. Keep 'em coming.

 

[cap14]

As for reincarnation, why must you be reincarnated at once? Why must you be reincarnated in accordance to what you did in life?

Again, another fair point. Why must we be reincarnated at once? My point was made from my own – limited – understanding of reincarnation as a process whereby the soul is reborn in a new form. I envisaged it as a sort of “conservation of soul number” law! But if the souls aren’t necessarily alive at the same time it begs the question where are they when they aren’t in human form? Again, the sheer number of people alive today would suggest that there are some amongst us who are in their first incarnation’s rather then reincarnation – why are they only now entering the cycle and where have they kept their lazy-ass souls all this time (prob. playing a kind of “spiritual WoW” somewhere). This would also suggest a process of soul creation rather then an infinite cycle of birth and rebirth. I don’t know … perhaps we need the input of someone who strongly believes in these things.

Good and evil are merely perceptions put up by the mind to add order to an otherwise supposedly chaotic society.

Agreed: good and evil are partly concepts invented by society. I also think “good” and “evil” might also represent an innate evolutionary response to safeguard our existence: we form a society due to similarities between us -- be it due to our spatial locations or mental responses to the questions we can’t explain [answer: invention of religion and god] – those things that differ from us are bad and evil; those similar are good. This might classically be viewed as the trade-off between drive of a genome to mutate (to otherwise explore the fitness landscape) versus the risk of said mutation. So … in summary I think maybe good and evil are social constructs influenced by an evolutionary drive to protect the population over the individual. Doh … am starting to ramble.

The crusades were led by the pope(s) of the times. At the moment they were doing the work of god. In today's times, they would be viewed as evil. Funny how religion changes with society.

Well maybe, but if you spoke to someone about the crusades today they would more likely then not respond with a certain detachment (not the fervours response one might expect if the act was considered evil), “Oh, the crusades, yeah, I think I know something about them.” Whereas if you spoke to the same person about, say, Al qaeda terrorists (which can be envisaged as a sub-religion localised crusade) the response would be somewhat different (and spirited). So not only do we get evil differing with society, we also get it diluting with time. I wonder if people will look back in a hundred years and flippantly say, “Hitler? Oh, wasn’t he something to do with a war at some point.”
On the subject of Crusades has anyone read about the “Children’s Crusades”? Now that’s scary.

Hmm … despite nearly a page of rambling, I don’t think I’ve actually raised any new points. Suppose I could say something on the nature of perception but I really have to do some work. Oh, damn ... forgot to try and debunk the emergence of life as a chance occurance. Oh well, next time (I might even throw in some numbers ). Ciao for now.

 

[Rampages]

Well maybe, but if you spoke to someone about the crusades today they would more likely then not respond with a certain detachment (not the fervours response one might expect if the act was considered evil), “Oh, the crusades, yeah, I think I know something about them.” Whereas if you spoke to the same person about, say, Al qaeda terrorists (which can be envisaged as a sub-religion localised crusade) the response would be somewhat different (and spirited). So not only do we get evil differing with society, we also get it diluting with time. I wonder if people will look back in a hundred years and flippantly say, “Hitler? Oh, wasn’t he something to do with a war at some point.”

Well a lot of us are indifferent to the things that didn't have an effect on our lives or those that we know, so I guess that's understandable. I'm sure in a century, people will say that Hitler wasn't that bad...and its probably normal.

To return to a previous topic, I don't think there is either heaven or hell. It seems to me that it is just way too easy to be sent to hell or heaven because of how you lived your life. We might be giving too much importance to our lives. We will live and die, be born and die some more, but the universe won't be affected in the least imo.

 

[juUnior]

I don;t like to philosophy, but i do belive in one sentence which i think is somewhat true: Nothing is impossible. If you don't know how to ride motorcycle, than learn that. Thats my way of life. I know that some things never change, but on uspects with "can i do it if i learn that" i think its true ^^