PDA

View Full Version : The Philosophy Thread


The Unseen
01-11-2010, 01:42 AM
Discuss what you wanna discuss. Topics, philosophers, your views, your rants, you name it. Just be touchy with ethics, as it veers towards politics, and religion, since that's explicitly prohibited and isn't philosophy. Well, there's philosophy of religion, but that's too close to religion-itself to be allowed.

vikes_28
01-11-2010, 01:55 AM
Didn't we have one of these before and it got deleted?

anyways. i think this thread would be better titled "the psychology thread" I love talking about psychology. It intrigues me.

SuperMcGee
01-11-2010, 02:15 AM
Thread full of raptors in 3...

Jvig43
01-11-2010, 02:32 AM
Reanimation of the dead? Possible? If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it. The only thing I can think of right now that doesnt have anything to do with politics or religion.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 05:43 AM
Reanimation of the dead? Possible? If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it. The only thing I can think of right now that doesnt have anything to do with politics or religion.

When the ammo is runs out, have a machete.

Brent
01-11-2010, 06:36 AM
If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it.
Get out the metroplex as fast as possible. Take TX hwys south until I make it to my friend's parents' cabin, which is out in the middle of nowhere. Stay there for a few days, then take off for good. Never stop moving.

senormysterioso
01-11-2010, 06:51 AM
Reanimation of the dead? Possible? If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it. The only thing I can think of right now that doesnt have anything to do with politics or religion.

Make a stand, I have 4 firearms in my apt, and about 2000 rounds of ammo for them in all. Just aim for the head. Aim for the head.

Gay Ork Wang
01-11-2010, 07:44 AM
Is there Charisma?

I say no.

Discuss

zachsaints52
01-11-2010, 09:48 AM
Id lock Zombies in cages and mock them. And then kill em.

Addict
01-11-2010, 10:14 AM
Is there Charisma?

I say no.

Discuss

I say yes, but it's something that can be tought. It's basically just the sum of decent (not too good or bad) looks, attitude (independent, mostly) and most importantly eloquence (while using 'normal' wording).

Charisma as a natural thing that occurs in people? no.

Go_Eagles77
01-11-2010, 10:26 AM
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1236718512632.jpg

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 10:33 AM
Reanimation of the dead? Possible? If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it. The only thing I can think of right now that doesnt have anything to do with politics or religion.

Reanimation possible? yes. But requires huge ammounts of electricity and stuff.

My zombie plan? Well that depends on which kind of Zombies we are talking about.

1. The original night of the Living dead type zombies: If the zombies are of that sort then dealing with them will be easy. Ammo and food inside a fort structure with no windows. I would need a large vehicle (HUM-V, tank, garbage truck etc.) to venture for food once a month and look for other survivors and gather food.

2. The Resident Evil Style Zombies (and Zombie esq creatures): Well these can climb and bust through walls so in all reality I'm screwed. But I'd probobly go with the run away aproach and bring an accurate powerful weapon for when I'm surrounded.

3. The 28 days later zombies: These zombies are the smartest they are fast and can use weapons. In which case I would steal a boat bring it out to the middle of a deep lake and live off of fish for the rest of my days.

Addict
01-11-2010, 10:37 AM
Reanimation of the dead? Possible? If a Zombie outbreak occurred how would everyone handle it. The only thing I can think of right now that doesnt have anything to do with politics or religion.

I would join them and lead them as the Undead Master of the Legions of Hell. I'll kill the ones with guns first. That way world domination will go smoothly.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Is there Charisma?

I say no.

Discuss

It most certainly exists. A natural, visual charm and positive means of oral, as well as visual communication, coupled with secure and persuasive attitude.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 10:41 AM
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1236718512632.jpg

They use their feet.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 10:41 AM
Reanimation possible? yes. But requires huge ammounts of electricity and stuff.

My zombie plan? Well that depends on which kind of Zombies we are talking about.

1. The original night of the Living dead type zombies: If the zombies are of that sort then dealing with them will be easy. Ammo and food inside a fort structure with no windows. I would need a large vehicle (HUM-V, tank, garbage truck etc.) to venture for food once a month and look for other survivors and gather food.

2. The Resident Evil Style Zombies (and Zombie esq creatures): Well these can climb and bust through walls so in all reality I'm screwed. But I'd probobly go with the run away aproach and bring an accurate powerful weapon for when I'm surrounded.

3. The 28 days later zombies: These zombies are the smartest they are fast and can use weapons. In which case I would steal a boat bring it out to the middle of a deep lake and live off of fish for the rest of my days.

In case of Zombie outbreak, we need to find broth and give him some decision making authority. He has most certainly given this some thought.

Gay Ork Wang
01-11-2010, 10:42 AM
It most certainly exists. A natural, visual charm and positive means of oral, as well as visual communication, coupled with secure and persuasive attitude.
u described Charisma with charm. What is the difference?

i dont think charisma stands for anything. Im not inclined to one person because of something that is just called charisma. Im either drawn to him because of his looks, or the things he says or how he says it. thats not charisma. Thats his looks, or the things he says or how he says it

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 10:45 AM
u described Charisma with charm. What is the difference?

i dont think charisma stands for anything. Im not inclined to one person because of something that is just called charisma. Im either drawn to him because of his looks, or the things he says or how he says it. thats not charisma. Thats his looks, or the things he says or how he says it

APS stop hacking Renji's account!

Addict
01-11-2010, 10:57 AM
APS stop hacking Renji's account!

http://users.rcn.com/bbober/zing/zphotos/zlogo_purple.gif

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 11:01 AM
APS stop hacking Renji's account!

That's a 2 for 1 slam right there.

Charm is what you put out, your demeanor and how you carry yourself. charisma is how it is perceived. A person you say is charismatic may not be what I feel is. Odds are, given the human factor, that most people will agree with who has charisma and who doesn't.

senormysterioso
01-11-2010, 12:05 PM
u described Charisma with charm. What is the difference?

i dont think charisma stands for anything. Im not inclined to one person because of something that is just called charisma. Im either drawn to him because of his looks, or the things he says or how he says it. thats not charisma. Thats his looks, or the things he says or how he says it

Charisma and charm are for the most part synonyms now, but historically charisma's etymology can be traced back to a German word used to describe a person with the gift of leadership and later took on the connotation of exhibiting personal charm. The verb form of charm is used more than the noun form however, and vice versa for charisma. Charisma is a noun used to describe an intangible quality and charismatic is an adjective used to describe an act. The English language is constantly evolving, it's barely recognizable from the English of 100-150 years ago.

Of course charisma exists because there is a word for it. Kenneth Burke says humans are "symbol using animals" and that we language things into being.

Ward
01-11-2010, 12:12 PM
Is man inherently good?

The Unseen
01-11-2010, 12:21 PM
this thread got out of hand rly quick.

And Ward: I don't have an answer, because I think it's a poor question. If I answer yes, I can be shown all the **** humans have done, and if I say no, I can be shown how man cares for their fellow, sacrifices for their families, and how a lot of bad things he does were done with good intentions or for good reasons. The question is too broad in scope IMO.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 12:24 PM
Is man inherently good?

I can't answer that in detail without bringing a viewpoint of religion into it, so I'll just say yes.

senormysterioso
01-11-2010, 12:26 PM
Man is neither good or bad, man has the capacity to do both good and bad things but I think that the overall net of all the good things outweighs the bad things that man does.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 12:27 PM
Be a man; pick a side.

Ward
01-11-2010, 12:32 PM
The question is too broad in scope IMO.

So does that mean you believe that we can't judge man as a species, but only as a series of individuals? I don't think the question is too broad, the nature of man is an interesting topic.

The Unseen
01-11-2010, 12:33 PM
But is there always a side to take on a question?

anyways

I'm gonna actually pick a side and say that man is inherently bad, but I'd need some time explaining my point, which I don't have.

A Perfect Score
01-11-2010, 01:00 PM
In response to Ward's question, I say no, man is not inherently good. When left to our own devices (and that is what is most important when dealing with this question, in my opinion) we are lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, surviving bastards. Placed outside common social structures, which have evolved to dictate what some call "good" behavior due to a sort of symbiotic relationship with others in that society, humans are not good. They are just like everything else...they want to live. The only reason we can be thought of as "good" and the reason we dont all screw each other on a regular basis is because there is safety in numbers. We realize we have a better chance of surviving in groups and societies then if we were all random and alone.

That said, if we were all random and alone, I have to believe that humans are not inherently good.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Is man inherently good?

That depends on the definition of "good". But in reallity the answer is no. People just like other animals do everything for one of 3 reasons. 1. food, 2. Survival, 3. sex.

Jvig43
01-11-2010, 01:28 PM
Is man inherently good?

I say yes, and I have this conversation all the time with my friends. Ill just start by using an example of a video shown in one of my classes. They recorded this child and a man in your normal every day room, the child was just old enough to move around, and have a small understanding of how things worked. The man would go around to a drawer and pretend to have trouble opening it. The child, with no real knowledge of who this man was would walk over, and help the man open the draw. Same thing with a stove, and everything else in the room. The child just helped, without being told, and without knowing this person.

Now granted thats just one example, but it hit home with me, and I honestly believe that over all people are fully capable of living a good life, even with all the crazy **** some have done.

senormysterioso
01-11-2010, 01:29 PM
When you ask if man is inherently good or bad it begs the question what is good and what is bad? Is good and bad absolute, or is it relative? If good is relative then good is simply conforming to the societally agreed upon norm, which some do and some obviously don't. Personally, I believe in moral relativism so I can't say that man is either inherently good or bad, because good and bad are not constant.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 01:35 PM
When you ask if man is inherently good or bad it begs the question what is good and what is bad? Is good and bad absolute, or is it relative? If good is relative then good is simply conforming to the societally agreed upon norm, which some do and some obviously don't. Personally, I believe in moral relativism so I can't say that man is either inherently good or bad, because good and bad are not constant.

This.

How do you know what is real? I mean the mind can make you see or feel anything. There was an experiment that had a man look at an apple. And they looked at his brain while looking at the apple. Then they asked him to close his eyes and imagine the apple and lo and behold the same areas of the brain lit up. So really, we don't know what is real all existence could be our brain messing with us. Do my hands really exist? Kinda a mind **** to think about.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 02:16 PM
Is man inherently good?

I learn toward yes.

Man has is inherently good, but we also have the capability to turn away from 'goodness'. Anything man does contrary to good is not 'evil', but a perversion of the good or what is true. Man knows what is good but at times turn away from or twist what is good into something contrary to good or truth. For example, Lying is perverting or twisting the truth by the use of human intellect,or drinking alcohol is not inherently 'bad', but a person constantly abusing it is the perversion of its intent.

So yes, man possesses the inherent capability to be 'good'.

Eaglez.Fan
01-11-2010, 02:17 PM
This.

How do you know what is real? I mean the mind can make you see or feel anything. There was an experiment that had a man look at an apple. And they looked at his brain while looking at the apple. Then they asked him to close his eyes and imagine the apple and lo and behold the same areas of the brain lit up. So really, we don't know what is real all existence could be our brain messing with us. Do my hands really exist? Kinda a mind **** to think about.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r312/jbrewerbucket/593px-Barin_in_a_vat_en_v2a.png

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 02:17 PM
Is man inherently good?

I learn toward yes.

Man has is inherently good, but we also have the capability to turn away from 'goodness'. Anything man does contrary to good is not 'evil', but a perversion of the good or what is true. Man knows what is good but at times turn away from or twist what is good into something contrary to good or truth. For example, Lying is perverting or twisting the truth by the use of human intellect,or drinking alcohol is not inherently 'bad', but a person constantly abusing it is the perversion of its intent.

Man possesses the inherent capability to be 'good', but unlike any other species he also possesses the ability to contentiously distort what is good.

The Unseen
01-11-2010, 04:18 PM
Alright, let's try this out.

A question like "Is man inherently good?" rides on a bunch of assumptions. Because of the vagaries of language and intent, I think the safest thing to rest on for a discussion is the most basic possible meaning of the question when it is asked, and the most basic intention of it. We can do it by breaking it apart, and then trying a bit of holism by just looking at it on its face.

So what is meant by "good"? Well there's the issue of relativism as posed by senormysterioso, but going off of broad intent I think we mean "helping people out n **** and not doing really bad ****." This makes the question broad and glosses over more controversial good/bad questions: almost all of us think it's good to help someone in need or it's good not to murder and rape, but it's debatable if it's good to tell a lie in certain situations or if it's not good to do your taxes or pray to god X. We can get nitpicky, but to arrive at an answer to a broad question we need broad parameters.

Now, good is not merely the negation of bad as I showed, meaning "it's good not to murder = it's bad to murder." In fact, I used two senses: the first sense was something that's cool/nice to do, but I also used the sense of negation of bad. The first sense was permissible stuff that has some sort of positive effect, like helping someone. No one's gonna get pissed if you don't help people out, but in order to be looked upon kindly it's the kind of stuff you'll do. Basically, you don't have to be a model citizen, but don't be a douche. The second sense is not doing stuff that is prohibited. Interestingly, looking at the broad question, there's not much agreed upon between humans that is obligatory when it's not a negation of a bad thing. The only thing I can think of is saving someone from bodily harm if it doesn't cause you bodily harm: saving a drowning child in a pool is obligatory because the only harm to you is that you get wet (example more or less stolen from Singer). But most people don't think it's obligatory to pray to Allah except Muslims. Like the negation of something that is prohibited is obligatory, the negation of something that is obligatory is prohibited: Don't not save the child drowning in the pool (it's a logical double negative, don't freak, b/c it equals the positive).

Why do I bring this up? Because the question could be asking three different things. "Is man inherently good" could mean he inherently does nice, permissible stuff that it's not wrong for him to do. "Is man inherently good" could mean he doesn't do bad stuff, like not murder. "Is man inherently good" could mean he does the obligatory good stuff, like save a drowning child.

I still need to look at "inherent," but on the face, I'm gonna argue that he is not inherently good in doing the nice permissible stuff. Douchebaggery is pretty prevalent. Also, going back to the relativist objection, whether that stuff is good at all is fairly sticky.

There are two different things that "inherently" mean - either on a random basis what comes natural or what we'll do in desperation that shows our "true natures." Jvig43's example illustrates the first point. Humans are conditioned to do certain things randomly. However, there's another dimension - are these things cultural or biological? Do we do these random acts of kindness or goodness out of what our environment influences us, or is there an innate part of us which picks things? Getting back to the question, I think the question should set aside the cultural implication, so "inherently" doesn't mean what culture/the "system" makes us do but rather what is a common psychological, biological, or spiritual basis, which then would form culture itself.

Seeing these two dichotomies, I think that we can set aside random acts of kindness, because looking at the question on its face, the "gusto" of the question is what we do when we are desparate, not what is random. Also, having picked biology over culture, inherently then here best means "what is innate for us to do in the worst kind of ordeals." Morality is pretty simple when we do random acts of kindness. That kind of stuff is 1) culturally implanted and 2) not at the heart of the matter. Like I said earlier, pursuing this from the bigger picture of the question and not just breaking down its constituent parts, the question is about what man does when the chips are down.

I already said that even without looking at "inherently," if doing good means doing the nice stuff, then man is not good. I think I've shown that even more once I've looked at "inherently." The other two are more important. I think, in fact, we are inherently good to do things that are obligatory like save a drowning child if it causes us no harm - it is instinctual. The real heart of the matter, though, lies in the negation of the bad - do we murder and rape and **** when the chips are down?

I say yes. In this sense, man is inherently bad. BUT, it's important to realize that depending on the situation, man can be pitied and even viewed as good for doing something bad. Maybe the intentions were good behind a murder if the person thought it would protect their family or their way of life. People caught up in gang violence do horrible ****, but the alternative of not doing them can be worse for the people. Or, maybe a person was conditioned by a neglectful home or environment, which made the person more prone to commit a heinous crime. So the answer here is not as clear as it seems.

In conclusion, I'll say that man is not inherently good, but it's by no means clear, and I can see the other side. In fact, I agree with the other side if we mean obligatory good stuff.

Ward
01-11-2010, 04:22 PM
If you're like me, you judge man as a species consisting of individuals w/ free will, thus man's "goodness" will always range across a broad spectrum. If free will doesn't exist, I think you can make an argument for either inherent "goodness" or inherent "evil". Does free will exist? Try and avoid religion as much as possible, but if you must, just keep it civilized and non-judgmental.

Personally I believe that if there is a god, free will does not exist and we all live out pre-determined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination) lives. A truly omnipotent being would know in advance all of our actions, which means that free will is an illusion. I've never heard a good argument for a Christian who also believes in free will.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 04:39 PM
If you're like me, you judge man as a species consisting of individuals w/ free will, thus man's "goodness" will always range across a broad spectrum. If free will doesn't exist, I think you can make an argument for either inherent "goodness" or inherent "evil". Does free will exist? Try and avoid religion as much as possible, but if you must, just keep it civilized and non-judgmental.

Personally I believe that if there is a god, free will does not exist and we all live out pre-determined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination) lives. A truly omnipotent being would know in advance all of our actions, which means that free will is an illusion. I've never heard a good argument for a Christian who also believes in free will.

While I am on the Theiest/Diest/Athiest fence I don't believe that free will exists when you look deeply enough and broadly enough at the same time. I mean everything is a reactioin to something else. From birth you are beset a genetic makeup that has all sorts of Nucleic Acids, proteins and other organic compounds waiting to be bombarded with electical impuses which then dictate how those organic compounds react making your decisions for you. So your life is predetermined based on your genes and the impulses that make up your experience.

Ward
01-11-2010, 04:41 PM
While I am on the Theiest/Diest/Athiest fence I don't believe that free will exists when you look deeply enough and broadly enough at the same time. I mean everything is a reactioin to something else. From birth you are beset a genetic makeup that has all sorts of Nucleic Acids, proteins and other organic compounds waiting to be bombarded with electical impuses which then dictate how those organic compounds react making your decisions for you. So your life is predetermined based on your genes and the impulses that make up your experience.

I do have an athiest friend who believes something similar to this. Basically, if Newtonian physics is true then everything is just a reaction to something else. Meaning your life is already preset (and possibly predictable). I didn't mention it in my post because I can't represent it well enough myself.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 04:52 PM
Personally I believe that if there is a god, free will does not exist and we all live out pre-determined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination) lives. A truly omnipotent being would know in advance all of our actions, which means that free will is an illusion. I've never heard a good argument for a Christian who also believes in free will.



This is a tough one for Theology, probably why there have been heresies (remember heresy does not imply something 'evil', but the choice contrary to official dogma) over it. I'll try and explain it the best I can from my elementary understanding of Christian dogma. A theologian would probably rip this apart but:

"Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the color of his eyes"

If you presuppose that there are an "elect" group people that God has predetermined for salvation you imply that each man does not possess the ability for salvation. In other words you're doubting the grace and providence of God. That is, your doubting the unmerited favor that God has given man, an opportunity toward salvation.



I do have an athiest friend who believes something similar to this. Basically, if Newtonian physics is true then everything is just a reaction to something else. Meaning your life is already preset (and possibly predictable). I didn't mention it in my post because I can't represent it well enough myself.

How can an atheist rest their argument on anything thought up by Newton? The guy was a devout Arian Christian, who spent a large portion of his life examining scripture along with science.

Same goes for Gaileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Leibniz,Kepler and most other who laid the foundations for modern science. Modern science as we know it owes its roots to many Christians.

Ward
01-11-2010, 05:05 PM
This is a tough one for Theology, probably why there have been heresies (remember heresy does not imply something 'evil', but the choice contrary to official dogma) over it. I'll try and explain it the best I can from my elementary understanding of Christian dogma. A theologian would probably rip this apart but:

"Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the color of his eyes"

If you presuppose that there are an "elect" group people that God has predetermined for salvation you imply that each man does not possess the ability for salvation. In other words you're doubting the grace and providence of God. That is, your doubting the unmerited favor that God has given man, an opportunity toward salvation.

How can an atheist rest their argument on anything thought up by Newton? The guy was a devout Arian Christian, who spent a large portion of his life examining scripture along with science..

I didn't mention it in my post because I can't represent it well enough myself.

Also, I'm not understanding how you draw a connection between predetermined salvation and man not being able to be saved at all, and then doubting the concept of god's grace? Grace is the only path to salvation for most Calvinist denominations of Christianity, with works being the alternative for other denominations.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 05:16 PM
Personally I believe that if there is a god, free will does not exist and we all live out pre-determined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination) lives. A truly omnipotent being would know in advance all of our actions, which means that free will is an illusion. I've never heard a good argument for a Christian who also believes in free will.

Again, I could debate that as well, but it would require me to get way to religious, so I'll just say there is a means to debate it, but you have to subscribe to the religious viewpoints I'd be bringing up.

In not trying to go overboard with the religion, you could say, God made man in his image and is therefore innately good, yet tempted by sin (absence of God) and therefore are imperfect and susceptible to "bad"/evil/sin.

Ward
01-11-2010, 05:18 PM
Again, I could debate that as well, but it would require me to get way to religious, so I'll just say there is a means to debate it, but you have to subscribe to the religious viewpoints I'd be bringing up.

Does it have anything to do with the viewpoints espoused in your sig? WWBD?

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 05:24 PM
Also, I'm not understanding how you draw a connection between predetermined salvation and man not being able to be saved at all, and then doubting the concept of god's grace? Grace is the only path to salvation for most Calvinist denominations of Christianity, with works being the alternative for other denominations.

I know you said that and I wasn't trying to attack you for saying that. I was only trying to show that an atheist basing their argument on Newtons methods for explaining God is contradictory. That was all I was trying to get at.

As for the second part... Like I said in my post, I"m no theologian... but there is a reason why predestination is regarded as heresy by Christian tradition. This is not an easy question to answer as Christianity is a very complex religion. Much interpretation has been done upon it since Augustine of Hippo and the pelagians heresy.

My understanding of it is this...Grace is an unmerited favor given in order for man to choose the truth, and by saying that someone is predetermined to not reach salvation, you are doubting the ability of a person to willingly turn toward that grace which God has offered to everyone. Therefore, each person has the conscientious ability decision to accept it or not.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 05:25 PM
How can an atheist rest their argument on anything thought up by Newton? The guy was a devout Arian Christian, who spent a large portion of his life examining scripture along with science.

Same goes for Gaileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Leibniz,Kepler and most other who laid the foundations for modern science. Modern science as we know it owes its roots to many Christians.

Prolly because back then athiests were burnt at the stake.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 05:27 PM
Isaiah 55:9
Just because you can not understand how free will could exist with in the scope of how a all powerful deity has pre-planned a special purpose for your life doesn't mean that said deity can not make it happen.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 05:29 PM
Prolly because back then athiests were burnt at the stake.

Back then atheists as we know it today didn't exist. That came after the enlightenment.

Not to mention if you read the works but these guys you can see in their writing that they were genuine Christians. Galileo calls Theology "the queen of all sciences" in his letter to the Grand Duchess.

By reading that Newton was an Arian Christian ( which was a heresy btw) one can infer that his intentions with religion was genuine, he spend the better part of a decade studying scripture instead of "science".

Science and Theology do not disagree with each other, Scientists and theologians do.

* Sorry I keep editing these, I keep needing to add more.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 05:32 PM
I"m no theologian...

I want to get in on that statement also. I know more scripture than the average person, but there is a great deal of church / religious history I know little of.

Ward
01-11-2010, 05:36 PM
Isaiah 55:9
Just because you can not understand how free will could exist with in the scope of how a all powerful deity has pre-planned a special purpose for your life doesn't mean that said deity can not make it happen.

Isaiah was a book written by men, not (a) god. I still don't understand a universe with an all knowing and powerful god leaves room for free will.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 05:40 PM
I want to get in on that statement also. I know more scripture than the average person, but there is a great deal of church / religious history I know little of.

Not us lay people are alone on that either. You talk to people who have spent their whole life studying Religion/Philosophy (you know the kind who have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know) and they'll tell you they feel the same way. There's just to much out there too know. The most intelligent person you'll ever meet is the one who not only knows the most, but will also admit their ignorance.


Isaiah was a book written by men, not (a) god. I still don't understand a universe with an all knowing and powerful god leaves room for free will.

Agian, no theologian but... I think According to Christian dogma it may be argued that Man may have authored the book, but God authored man and creation (nature). So in a sense, essentially he wrote it?

steve buscemi
01-11-2010, 05:59 PM
http://i47.tinypic.com/281sdq1.png

RoyHall#1
01-11-2010, 06:09 PM
Isaiah was a book written by men, not (a) god. I still don't understand a universe with an all knowing and powerful god leaves room for free will.

Just throwing this out there. If he's all powerful then he has the power to limit his own powers, if that makes sense. :D

steve buscemi
01-11-2010, 06:13 PM
Just throwing this out there. If he's all powerful then he has the power to limit his own powers, if that makes sense. :D

http://richardathome.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/epicurus-quote.jpg

Come on professor....

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 07:06 PM
http://richardathome.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/epicurus-quote.jpg

Come on professor....
I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

Brothgar
01-11-2010, 07:09 PM
I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

That is not true the Christian god is the same as the Jewish god.

steve buscemi
01-11-2010, 07:14 PM
I can debunk your intentions of that pic/quote from a historical perspective...
Epicurus is from the 3rd century BC, therefore he's not talking about a Christian ( probably not even a monotheistic) God, which didn't come around until hundreds of years later.

So he proved it wrong before it was even invented! Even more brilliant! Although monotheism was around before Epicurus.

The Unseen
01-11-2010, 07:19 PM
The problem of evil isn't supposed to cast doubt on theism, just religions which accepts a god that 1) is omnipotent 2) omniscient and 3) all good.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 07:22 PM
That is not true the Christian god is the same as the Jewish god.

That's why I said probably not even a monotheistic God in my post.

So he proved it wrong before it was even invented! Even more brilliant! Although monotheism was around before Epicurus.
Do a little more reading on Epicureanism, it's not a atheistic belief. When you take a quote like that out of context it can look like it is.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 07:23 PM
The problem of evil isn't supposed to cast doubt on theism, just religions which accepts a god that 1) is omnipotent 2) omniscient and 3) all good.[/b]


Who's to determine if there is evil though? Not just a twisting of what is good?

steve buscemi
01-11-2010, 07:26 PM
Do a little more reading on Epicureanism, it's not a atheistic belief. When you take a quote like that out of context it can look like it is.

"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Sounds like atheism to me?

Ward
01-11-2010, 07:29 PM
Agian, no theologian but... I think According to Christian dogma it may be argued that Man may have authored the book, but God authored man and creation (nature). So in a sense, essentially he wrote it?

According to reality, the book was written by men who may have believed that their god inspired them to do so. I am not dismissing the Bible as useless, but it certainly demands perspective.

TitleTown088
01-11-2010, 07:33 PM
"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Sounds like atheism to me?

Did you just quote wiki?Ha, well might as well read the rest if that's your source than.

Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people.[2] Epicurus conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting the metakosmia: empty spaces between worlds in the vastness of infinite space. In spite of his recognition of the gods, the practical effect of this materialistic explanation of the gods' existence and their complete non-intervention in human affairs renders his philosophy akin in divine effects to the attitude of Deism.

The Unseen
01-11-2010, 07:35 PM
Who's to determine if there is evil though? Not just a twisting of what is good?

I don't know what you mean.

steve buscemi
01-11-2010, 07:39 PM
Ok, so it been awhile since I took my intro to classical philosophy, so my ability to pretend like i know everything because I once heard a lecture on the subject is lacking at the moment.

Thankfully though, his quote still align in order to disprove the Christian belief in god, so hurray! That is what we are talking about im guessing? I didn't really bother to read a single post before my posts on dinosaurs.

CJSchneider
01-11-2010, 09:26 PM
http://richardathome.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/epicurus-quote.jpg

Come on professor....

Romans 3:23 No one is innocent. Oh, and eating the fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is that whole thing.

Ward
01-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Thankfully though, his quote still align in order to disprove the Christian belief in god, so hurray! That is what we are talking about im guessing? I didn't really bother to read a single post before my posts on dinosaurs.

Fakes God buried in the ground to test our faith!

Paranoidmoonduck
01-11-2010, 10:31 PM
Um, wasn't this thread supposed to stay away from religion?

I never liked the "is man inherently good or evil", mostly because I'm not sure man is inherently anything before he starts to interact with the world and so long as you look at the examples that history provide us, man seems to have defined and re-defined the meaning of those two polar concepts many times. If we're equally capable of both in their extreme, then we are nothing more than beings capable of the explicit and informed choice (we are free). Even if a God did create us (or create the process by which life was born), it would appear he's created an organic and free process. Good enough?

Favorite philosophers everybody?

wogitalia
01-11-2010, 10:32 PM
I think that man is inherently good, the problem is that good is defined by society, not some inherent thing within humans.

For instance... Michael Vick is "bad/evil" in American Society for the whole dogfighting saga. In many countries throughout the world, this would not have made Michael Vick a "bad/evil" human. In this case, by doing something against social norms he has become bad, not through actually doing something evil in and of itself.

Another example of this is paedophilia. It was perfectly normal up until about 200 years ago for men to marry women when they came of age(ie 12ish), hell it still is in some countries today. Nowadays you are the most evil of scum if you are to sleep with someone under 15 or so. If you were Roman or Greek when they ruled the world, you would be perfectly normal. So now doing something that is normal, is in fact bad.

Society has basically made the "bad/evil" side of humans. By fighting or trying to control the laws of nature we create bad humans. For instance, survival of the fit, we do everything we can to thwart it and undo it, hell someone who makes a medical breakthrough that does just this is a hero/good person, even though as a result of their actions they are making the human race weaker by continuing the genetics of weaker humans.

So, imo, humans are inherently good, the stripping of free will by society creates the badness.

Gay Ork Wang
01-12-2010, 06:25 AM
Charisma and charm are for the most part synonyms now, but historically charisma's etymology can be traced back to a German word used to describe a person with the gift of leadership and later took on the connotation of exhibiting personal charm. The verb form of charm is used more than the noun form however, and vice versa for charisma. Charisma is a noun used to describe an intangible quality and charismatic is an adjective used to describe an act. The English language is constantly evolving, it's barely recognizable from the English of 100-150 years ago.

Of course charisma exists because there is a word for it. Kenneth Burke says humans are "symbol using animals" and that we language things into being.

You can't look at it that way. I say what about a centaur? does he exist because the word exists? surely a little weird analogy, but just because there is the word charisma, doesnt mean it describes something that is really there. Charisma is a word for things that draw people in but they dont know what it is. They tend to say, well thats just charisma. but it really isnt. it is like i said, their appearance, their gentleness or whatnot what draws them in.

you hear people use Charisma as a reason. as if it was some magic that draws u into something. People voted for Hitler because he was charismatic. That is ********. they voted for him because he said things that the people believed in straight forward. people voted for him because they agreed with him.
Charisma is a word, yes. But is not something i can see that is found in a person. It is just a word for something people like in another person but cant really describe what it is. But that other thing is there. Way someone talks etc etc. So looking at it from that point, there is no real charisma found in a person.

CJSchneider
01-12-2010, 07:19 AM
That's like saying there is no such thing as a cake, since cake is made of flour, eggs milk, etc. Charisma is the combination and perception of all those characteristics you can name that "draws you in'.

iworshipbender
01-12-2010, 07:26 AM
I remember when I used to argue about religion.

Then I turned 17.

fear the elf
01-12-2010, 07:32 AM
Is man inherently good?

Maybe taking an easy out here, but I think man is inherently selfish, which generally leads to bad, whether it be how you treat fellow man, the environment, etc.

Gay Ork Wang
01-12-2010, 07:40 AM
That's like saying there is no such thing as a cake, since cake is made of flour, eggs milk, etc. Charisma is the combination and perception of all those characteristics you can name that "draws you in'.
but if you talk about cake. its usually the same.

Charisma is different. its like saying, eggs flour milk...are all cake

The Unseen
01-12-2010, 09:20 AM
I remember when I used to argue about religion.

Then I turned 17.

I'm glad that we're all inferior to you now!

I say what about a centaur? does he exist because the word exists? surely a little weird analogy, but just because there is the word charisma, doesnt mean it describes something that is really there.

Of course a centaur exists. It doesn't exist in the real world, but it sure as hell exists in story books and what-not. Are we excepted not to have words for things that are in story books?

You may of course reply that maybe charisma doesn't exist in the real world and just in our imaginations, but all the examples of charisma are in the real world. Since it's really just a word for a noteworthy combination of emotions and attitudes, it's pretty easy to say it exists. We may debate the parameters of the definition (is that person being charismatic right now?) but that's a different question.

The Unseen
01-12-2010, 09:33 AM
Favorite philosophers everybody?

I still haven't read enough philosophy, but from what I can tell I'd like the ordinary language philosophers like later Wittgenstein, JL Austin, Grice, and Searle. If we're talking about Ancient Greek philosophy, I like what I've heard about Aristotle, Socrates, Epicurus but not Plato. I've read up a little on existentialism which thus would describe guys like Sartre, Paul Tillich, and Heidegger; it's very interesting and it says some good things but I wouldn't consider myself one.

Oh, and I think what Renji is getting at is about how concepts don't really have a solid definition. Things like "charisma," "liberalism," "love," etc are so screwy in scope that it may lead people to think that they don't exist because they are used so differently. The best we can do is define them for a discussion, finding the necessary and sufficient conditions of the definition and recognizing the differences in use and definition between people, and see what we can agree upon that it refers to.

Gay Ork Wang
01-12-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm glad that we're all inferior to you now!



Of course a centaur exists. It doesn't exist in the real world, but it sure as hell exists in story books and what-not. Are we excepted not to have words for things that are in story books?

You may of course reply that maybe charisma doesn't exist in the real world and just in our imaginations, but all the examples of charisma are in the real world. Since it's really just a word for a noteworthy combination of emotions and attitudes, it's pretty easy to say it exists. We may debate the parameters of the definition (is that person being charismatic right now?) but that's a different question.

i guess so. thats what i was trying to say.

Brothgar
01-12-2010, 09:43 AM
I remember when I used to argue about religion.

Then I turned 17.

I remember when I thought I was too cool to discuss religion with others. Then I turned 21.

CJSchneider
01-12-2010, 10:26 AM
If you remember in one of my earlier posts I said we could probably agree on who is charismatic and who isn't, but what you base your argument off of is like saying a car is a car. in which case I'll gladly trade you my Saturn for your BMW (hey a car is a car right).

Charisma is a combination of various elements perceived by others to make a person have a certain attractiveness which people are drawn to. Personal preferences surely play a part into this, but it is this combonation of many things, either perceived by the conscious or subconscious that makes up charisma.

iworshipbender
01-12-2010, 03:34 PM
It's not about me being too cool to discuss religion. It's just come to the point that if I do discuss religion, I want to gouge my eyes out because there is absolutely no point in it. You are never going to convince someone that the bible is not a book that should be used as reference and no one is going to be convinced of any omnipresent being like a god if they don't believe in it already.

Jvig43
01-12-2010, 03:45 PM
It's not about me being too cool to discuss religion. It's just come to the point that if I do discuss religion, I want to gouge my eyes out because there is absolutely no point in it. You are never going to convince someone that the bible is not a book that should be used as reference and no one is going to be convinced of any omnipresent being like a god if they don't believe in it already.

The best thing I find about discussion is that the goal doesnt have to be to convince others your right. I love talking with people who see things differently then I do, it helps to see things from the other side. Too many people see things in terms of right and wrong, but its much more beneficial to just talk and walk away from the conversation with a better understanding of everything.

The Unseen
01-12-2010, 03:50 PM
It's not about me being too cool to discuss religion. It's just come to the point that if I do discuss religion, I want to gouge my eyes out because there is absolutely no point in it. You are never going to convince someone that the bible is not a book that should be used as reference and no one is going to be convinced of any omnipresent being like a god if they don't believe in it already.

You've confused discussing religion with evangelism.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Charisma is a combination of various elements perceived by others to make a person have a certain attractiveness which people are drawn to. Personal preferences surely play a part into this, but it is this combonation of many things, either perceived by the conscious or subconscious that makes up charisma.

If it helps anybody, let's look at the polar concept: awkwardness. Does awkwardness exist? Is it a concept that people react to in real life? Is it a judgement that people place on themselves and others based on the way they interact with the people around them? I would say all the answer to these are yes.

Now, granted, concepts like these are open to some interpretation in practice. To what degree of the concept someone recognizes charisma or awkwardness is pretty loose, but that's true for almost any concept. Tall/short are relative judgments that would vary based on the conditions of the sample size you are referencing (ex: If I grew up as a Maasai in Kenya, my idea of tall or short wouldn't come close to reflecting yours).

I'm not saying that the status of a concept always reflects that of its polar, but in this case I think they are quite similar.

Brent
01-12-2010, 06:06 PM
Does awkwardness exist?
a situation is awkward only to the person who feels awkward.

CJSchneider
01-12-2010, 07:16 PM
No, PMD is correct, there is a polar opposite to charisma. If "charisma" is the perception of traits, so would be "awkwardness".

Paranoidmoonduck
01-12-2010, 07:56 PM
a situation is awkward only to the person who feels awkward.

Is charisma not bound to the same interaction necessity to find its meaning? A person is only charismatic if the person interacting with them recognizes them as such.

steve buscemi
01-12-2010, 11:01 PM
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum

CJSchneider
01-12-2010, 11:07 PM
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f218/retro_stixy/Blog/Philosoraptor_1.jpg

The Unseen
01-13-2010, 12:11 AM
That's basically a form of the liar's paradox, which says that the truth value of anything like "This statement is false" is a paradox.

I don't have a good answer.

EvilMonkey
01-13-2010, 12:11 AM
I think therefore I am.

However, I have sexual dreams but wake up knowing my **** was unsucked so I know my thinking is not always true.

Therefore, can I say with 100% certainty that I exist?

The Unseen
01-13-2010, 12:16 AM
that's you dreaming, not thinking.

Also, if you hallucinate, that still proves that there is something that hallucinates, meaning that you exist. The hallucinated things may not exist, but someone is hallucinating them.

How far the cogito can be extended is debatable. As in, to what extent do you exist, and what makes up "you"?

steve buscemi
01-13-2010, 12:20 AM
Actually its "I think I Think therefore I think that I am"

wogitalia
01-13-2010, 12:40 AM
Charisma for me is that intangible thing beyond that which you can explain that attracts you to another human. I do not think it is quantifiable though, which makes it hard, perhaps it is best described as the combination of things beyond that which is obvious that makes you like someone. It is an aura as much as anything.

Gay Ork Wang
01-13-2010, 05:56 AM
I dont think anyone is charismatic. I just dont see saying someone is charismatic is of any use.

saying someone is charismatic for me is basically saying: hey, that guy did something.

Charisma is something that depends on the person himself.
People thought Hitler was charismatic. I dont think so at all. He looked like an awkward little man, just really ugly, speaking really really weird things. Just because he came everytime he spoke openly, doesnt mean i think he is charismatic.
For me its like Good or bad. A person cant be good or cant be bad. Hitler was good in the eyes of people that supported him, bad in the eyes of those he persecuted. Therefore, saying someone is good, is really not of use for anything.

I feel like, even though tall and small is a relative concept, it can be of use when talking with people that are used to the same standards. There is no standard for charisma. no relativ fix point.

also: i dont understand what u mean by car.

CJSchneider
01-13-2010, 11:14 AM
If you think all cars are the same you are wrong. If you don't believe that, try getting someone who drives a Mercedes to trade it for a "hoopty" - even trade.
It was my analogy to your statement about cakes being the same.

In regards to charisma, can it be broken down into identifiable traits? Surely, but to say it does not exist is like saying a car does not exist because it can be broken down into identifiable pieces (bolts, nuts, tires, etc). Charisma may be different because the traits are not always the same and have an inter as well as intrapersonal set of differences.

Gay Ork Wang
01-13-2010, 11:32 AM
If you think all cars are the same you are wrong. If you don't believe that, try getting someone who drives a Mercedes to trade it for a "hoopty" - even trade.
It was my analogy to your statement about cakes being the same.

In regards to charisma, can it be broken down into identifiable traits? Surely, but to say it does not exist is like saying a car does not exist because it can be broken down into identifiable pieces (bolts, nuts, tires, etc). Charisma may be different because the traits are not always the same and have an inter as well as intrapersonal set of differences.
okay i admit i was wrong with the existance. but its not a characteristic in itself and it really doesnt help at all

CJSchneider
01-13-2010, 11:55 AM
okay i admit i was wrong with the existance. but its not a characteristic in itself and it really doesnt help at all

That depends on what you are using it for. I promise you a car salesman with charisma sells more then one with out it.

Gay Ork Wang
01-13-2010, 04:53 PM
That depends on what you are using it for. I promise you a car salesman with charisma sells more then one with out it.
thats what im saying. thats prolly just a salesman handy with words. Charisma is just a really really broad view on that. Id rather use a little more specific description. Charismatic is not a personal characteristic and therefore not really that useful describing people

CJSchneider
01-13-2010, 04:57 PM
Handy with words or the ability to effectively communicate is just part of charisma, along with confidence, attractions we are aware of only on a subconscious level, etc. Would the same guy who was handy with words be as charismatic if he had bad skin, a dead tooth and was was obese?

TitleTown088
01-13-2010, 05:09 PM
It's not about me being too cool to discuss religion. It's just come to the point that if I do discuss religion, I want to gouge my eyes out because there is absolutely no point in it. You are never going to convince someone that the bible is not a book that should be used as reference and no one is going to be convinced of any omnipresent being like a god if they don't believe in it already.

I remember when I used to argue about religion.
Then I turned 17.
I don't think anyone was really arguing. If people don't discuss religion/philosophy, how can thought advance? There's nothing counterproductive about discussing it unless you make it out to be.






People thought Hitler was charismatic. I dont think so at all.

Godwins Law. ;)

CJSchneider
01-13-2010, 05:14 PM
Godwin's Law meets Rule #34

http://rule34-images.paheal.net/a8c55d1c325c043588e3be32a5a34f84/326161%20-%20Adolf_Hitler%20Communist%20Joseph_Stalin%20nazi .jpg

Paranoidmoonduck
01-13-2010, 05:41 PM
Godwins Law. ;)

Maybe it applies to Germans differently though... ;)

If the problem with charisma is one of specificity and not of existence (which is seems to be here), then I would ask if you feel you could quantify everything about a person's attractiveness, down the most basic, for every single person you meet. You probably could do a good job for most people in your life, but could you do everyone?

For me, I know that there's a somewhat ineffable idea behind attraction. It would be folly for me to try and iterate exactly why I like some people and dislike others. If you asked me why I pursued certain women in my life and not others, I would have trouble quantifying that as well. There's something in us that existed way before we discovered language that helps rule that attraction and interaction and we're forced to use somewhat open-ended concepts to approach defining it.

The Unseen
01-13-2010, 05:45 PM
Yes and yes to what PMD and CJ are saying. To sum it up, concept words are gooey and fluid. Trying to pin down characteristics about some things that we intuitively stick words to is really, really hard, but we know what we mean enough by each other when we say them that they are useful concepts.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-13-2010, 05:57 PM
I would say that it is precisely their "gooey and fluid" nature that makes them so useful. They are words that are supremely capable of communicating a whole range of things based on their context. So long as people take the time to establish that context in their communication, so as to avoid confusion, they are some of the most powerful words in the English language.

Brent
01-13-2010, 06:32 PM
some of the most powerful words in the English language.
I'm still going with the F-word as the most powerful word.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-13-2010, 06:44 PM
I'm still going with the F-word as the most powerful word.

Phonetically, it's a fantastic word. So is the c-word. It's always bummed me that the British use it so freely but it's so frowned up in this country.

The Unseen
01-13-2010, 06:50 PM
I would say that it is precisely their "gooey and fluid" nature that makes them so useful. They are words that are supremely capable of communicating a whole range of things based on their context. So long as people take the time to establish that context in their communication, so as to avoid confusion, they are some of the most powerful words in the English language.

Exactly. Rhetorical force is a value of language that is ultimately more important than their propositional truth values.

Brent
01-13-2010, 09:52 PM
Exactly. Rhetorical force is a value of language that is ultimately more important than their propositional truth values.
as a student of rhetoric, I'll say this: you can know jack ****, but if you sound convincing enough, you can always win an argument.

CJSchneider
01-13-2010, 10:14 PM
as a student of rhetoric, I'll say this: you can know jack ****, but if you sound convincing enough, you can always win an argument.

****, my secret is out.

Brent
01-13-2010, 10:18 PM
****, my secret is out.
oh I am totally guilty of that. I often sound like I know what I am talking about, even if I dont try.

wogitalia
01-13-2010, 10:19 PM
It would be folly for me to try and iterate exactly why I like some people and dislike others.

That is the way I feel about some athletes. There are a couple in the AFL(Aussie Rules), that I should like as players, they play how I feel it should be played, are not dirty and the like, but because of the way their head's look, I can not like them as players. It isn't even an ugly thing, I just don't like the way their heads look.

I am the same with Kobe Bryant in the NBA, his ferret like face makes me dislike him, but it isn't the actual appearance it is what that ferret like face stands for, which goes beyond the aesthetics.

wogitalia
01-13-2010, 10:20 PM
oh I am totally guilty of that. I often sound like I know what I am talking about, even if I dont try.

That is the thin red line where confidence and arrogance begin to blur is it not... A line that I tend to tread very closely and feel is very important to cross every so often.

The Unseen
01-21-2010, 03:44 PM
THIS THREAD MUST NOT DIE.

so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics#The_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?

2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?

The Unseen
01-23-2010, 01:41 PM
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump

Paranoidmoonduck
01-23-2010, 02:31 PM
so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics#The_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?

How Buddhist...

2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?

It's tough to answer the question without knowing the considered scale of the good. So long as one admits that no human has enough foresight to consider all the social ramifications of their actions and, indeed, that their foresight is generally limited even far shorter of that standard for the sake of expediency, one has a problem of scale. Who and what a person considers outside of themselves when considering good will vary greatly and therefore will vary their standards for the term itself.

One could say that this is another example of that Golden Mean; that the balance lies somewhere between selfishness and altruism, but for me that is a vague answer to a pretty specific question.

TitleTown088
01-28-2010, 01:57 PM
"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Sounds like atheism to me?

Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.

zachsaints52
01-28-2010, 02:00 PM
Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

Paranoidmoonduck
01-28-2010, 02:03 PM
Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

So long as we are unable to imprison concepts, the physical human is still responsible for their actions. I'm not suggesting the law shouldn't recognize mitigating circumstances, but acts of desperation or passion are still acted by the subject. It's not the most empathetic perspective, but don't any other way to maintain the system.

Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.

Even St. Aquinas never really argued for stuff like divine intervention, instead invoking God as the first step in a rather Newton-esque series of events. That said, from what I remember of Epicurus is that he firstly believed that the basis of reality (his conceptual atoms, different from our actual atoms) sought no result and were themselves random and chaotic. Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.

TitleTown088
01-28-2010, 02:11 PM
Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

Your prof is a jackass. :D

Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.

Yeah, deism.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-28-2010, 02:12 PM
Wait, was you professor saying that was a morally legitimate defense or that the legal argument has been made? If he said the former, then yeah, he's a jackass.

The Unseen
01-28-2010, 02:43 PM
Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

That's not a good enough reason. I believe that even if determinism is true, that does not necessarily change the legal system, because the legal system is more about self-defense from wrongdoing rather than seeking a responsible cause. If a person is caused to be a habitually bloodthirsty person or if they choose to be that way, it doesn't matter - lock 'em up so they don't kill again. Maybe if determinism is true we should find ways to change those societal or biological causes, but we shouldn't sit on our hands in the meantime.

zachsaints52
01-28-2010, 02:56 PM
She says that you can use it in a case you could win with that arguement. And I agree, she is dumb, but a nice old lady.

themaninblack
01-29-2010, 12:01 AM
Yea, I have a real hard time believing that would ever hold up in court in any way. Then again, if you go with a jury anything could happen.


Speaking of, we were debating that whole McDonald's Hot Coffee incident in my Litigation class and I thought it would be interesting to see what y'all thought about it if it even has any application in this thread.

Basically(if you don't already know) this woman spilled a cup of coffee on herself at McDonald's and sued for her injuries. She offered to settle out of court for 20k which McD's refused(inexplicably) and was initially rewarded millions of dollars. She ended up settling privately for a different figure so I'm sure it was less than that but it was surely a substantial figure.

I guess my question is, is it ok for the court to award punitive damages of such an amount for something like this? I mean, she spilled it on herself and their claim was that the coffee was simply too hot(190F) and that they had been warned about it numerous times over a decade through customer complaints.


Sorry this is probably completely off topic but I had to get that out lol.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-29-2010, 12:32 PM
Yeah, deism.

It would appear to be a different kind of deism, even. Deism is almost solely based around the idea of "God" instead of Epicurus' many Gods. And Epicurus absolutely recognized the contemporary value in the stories of the Gods. That would make him a pretty strange deist.

The Unseen
01-29-2010, 12:35 PM
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3e

The Unseen
03-02-2010, 11:36 PM
must...not...die

Consider the following:

1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

Is this a valid inference? Discuss.

dabears10
03-02-2010, 11:42 PM
must...not...die

Consider the following:

1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

Is this a valid inference? Discuss.

I don't really feel like dealing with this with respect to philosophy. However, considering women have many factors of attractiveness, including but not limited to confidence, perception of wealth and status, and looks, then Clark Kent and Superman are two different personalities and have different amounts of confidence and wealth and status. The similarity of looks only accounts for one of the three aspects that i listed. The inference would then be wrong.

Off Topic, but Superman is such a stalker. He could have any job in the world but of course he must work with one girl that he has an obsession with and can stalk her every day of his work. It is creepy.

The Unseen
03-02-2010, 11:47 PM
I don't really feel like dealing with this with respect to philosophy.This is philosophy up the wazoo. Philosophy of language, metaphysics, ontology, logic...all there.

That being said, your answer basically arrives at mine: No, it is not a valid inference. I say that when it means for someone to think that something is the case, they think certain particulars to be the case about it. If Lois thinks Superman is hot, it is because of various factors you listed. Those factors are not present in Clark Kent. Sure, Clark Kent and Superman share the same real-world body, but in Lois' aesthetic, subjective world, which is what it means to think, they are different. This means that it is possible that Lois does not think Clark Kent is hot, making the inference invalid, a form of equivocation.

Chucky
03-02-2010, 11:53 PM
must...not...die

Consider the following:

1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

Is this a valid inference? Discuss.

No it isn't. When you use the words like think then you can't replace words coming after it even if they have the same meaning.

Better example to prove why it's wrong

1. Unseen thinks that Alice Cooper is a woman
2. Alice Cooper is Vincent Furnier
3. therefore, Unseen think Vincent Furnier is a woman.


Clearly you wouldnt think Vincent Furnier was a woman

RoyHall#1
03-03-2010, 06:10 PM
This sentence is false.

Brent
03-03-2010, 06:27 PM
1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot
better syllogism:
a) Lois is attracted to Superman
b) Clark Kent is Superman
c) Lois is attracted to Clark

or as an enthymeme:
a) Lois is attracted to Superman
b) Lois is attracted to Clark Kent

this is what I get for choosing the Rhetoric track English degree...

Shahin
03-04-2010, 03:32 PM
http://www.deorc.net/other/ars/mind-blown.jpg


+


http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm.jpg

=me finding the Philosophy thread day after Philosophy exam.

The Unseen
03-04-2010, 03:34 PM
I don't think anything in here was entirely helpful, but yeah, I or others could've answered some of your questions.

how was the exam, what did it cover, etc.

Oh, the syllogism I posted is relevant because I was at a talk about the nature of propositions and apparently some philosophers of language would claim that 1) is the same proposition as 3). I guess that means they think propositions are about extensions (the things the words pick out, in this case Superman and Clark Kent pick out the same thing) rather than intensions (the meaning on the whole, which is clearly different). It was a side point and I don't recall the argument. Anyways.

MetSox17
05-21-2010, 11:05 PM
bumpededed

The Unseen
05-21-2010, 11:10 PM
why couldn't i find this

thanks

The Unseen
05-21-2010, 11:11 PM
Philosophy huh? I major in philosophy.

I want everyone's personal definition of what it means to be human.

this is somewhat interesting, so let's go. mainly because the words in the question can be made to mean different things. I'll hold off on my own analysis.

MetSox17
05-21-2010, 11:15 PM
If you know who created a thread, just go to their profile and click "find all threads created by ___ ", it'll come up if it hasn't been deleted.

Job
05-22-2010, 12:48 AM
I'm gonna sleep on that question, think a lot and probably end up not posting anything here because I'll be all confused.

Paranoidmoonduck
05-22-2010, 01:10 AM
I don't think the question is really all that interesting. We made our first species classification the moment we recognized that there was us and other animals. We came to classify "us" as "human".

Recognizing that, I imagine that there is an astounding number of things you could list that make us human, from the innocuous to the important. Then again, if you phrase the question with emphasis on the "meaning" part then let's just cut out the human part. To ask the question in the first place is human. What does it mean to exist?

The Unseen
05-22-2010, 07:20 AM
To ask the question in the first place is human. What does it mean to exist?

Yeah, I think that's what I meant by different meaning of words. I was thinking about a different meaning of "be," a meaning which is hit upon by Heidegger and existentialists, and you seem to have the general gist of that meaning. They weren't concerned that we are, but were concerned with what does is mean that we are.

Brothgar
05-22-2010, 12:29 PM
better syllogism:
a) Lois is attracted to Superman
b) Clark Kent is Superman
c) Lois is attracted to Clark

or as an enthymeme:
a) Lois is attracted to Superman
b) Lois is attracted to Clark Kent

this is what I get for choosing the Rhetoric track English degree...

But the opposite can also stand to reason

1) Louis isn't attracted to Clark Kent
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Louis isn't attracted to Superman.

So which one is the false statement?

Brent
05-22-2010, 01:58 PM
But the opposite can also stand to reason

1) Louis isn't attracted to Clark Kent
2) Clark Kent is Superman
3) Louis isn't attracted to Superman.

So which one is the false statement?
1 is false, because she was attracted to Clark Kent.

BuckeyeDan17
05-22-2010, 02:35 PM
I didn't ask what makes us human. I just want to know what you guys think it means to be human. It doesn't have to be interesting to everyone, I'm just one curious cat.

But to know what it means to exist? I would say recognition of the external and any type of consciousness is existence. Must give this more thought.

The Unseen
05-22-2010, 02:43 PM
What does it mean to exist?

That could mean
1) is there meaning to my existence
or
2) What does "I/he/she/you exist" mean, or better: What are the conditions that match the meaning of the phrase "I/he/she/you exist" so I know that I/he/she/you do?

The first is an age old problem, the second is I think what you're after. Are you trying to think of how to delineate cases of people who are mentally ill/vegetables and wondering if they could be said to be alive? Because that's just a question of being alive. And that's also debatable, maybe you have to be fully cognizant to be considered alive. To know that you exist is a given, see Descartes, Rene.

Bengals78
05-22-2010, 02:44 PM
This thread doesnt actually exist

Job
05-22-2010, 04:54 PM
My bitterness would probably push me to say that being human is having the ability to destroy every inch of nature's beauty for our own worthless comfort, because we're the only living creatures who are assholes enough to do that.

TitanHope
05-22-2010, 05:23 PM
My bitterness would probably push me to say that being human is having the ability to destroy every inch of nature's beauty for our own worthless comfort, because we're the only living creatures who are assholes enough to do that.

Beavers build dams from trees. Dams that stop up rivers and streams that affect river life.

Not trying to say you're wrong. Just saying them beavers are huge dicks as well.

The Unseen
05-22-2010, 05:26 PM
A species of anything is on average a speciesist. That, however, has no bearing on whether we as humans should be speciesists.

Job
05-22-2010, 05:30 PM
Beavers build dams from trees. Dams that stop up rivers and streams that affect river life.

Not trying to say you're wrong. Just saying them beavers are huge dicks as well.

Well their influence stops somewhere and is part of the ecosystem balance as they're benefical to whatever lives in marshes and swamps.

The Unseen
05-22-2010, 05:43 PM
that presupposes the current ecosystem with beavers. If there were no beavers perhaps the ecosystem would have been different.

Bengals78
05-22-2010, 11:31 PM
I believe I am alone.
Therefore you all are parts of a subconsciousness dream I do not believe is real.
I am not actually real so you are all part of my dream

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 01:26 AM
Digging up this old thread in hopes that someone can explain or guide me to an explanation regarding the problem of a reverse or backward causal relationship between freely made choices and God's foreknowledge. I understand the traps of foreknowledge fairly well, but I'm having a hard time figuring out where the problem comes in if you make the claim that because I Freely make a decision, God knows it, due to his foreknowledge. I feel that my actions are still free, and those actions caused God's knowledge that I would do so.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 09:57 AM
I think what it comes down to is if God knows the outcome why give us the choice to begin with.

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 10:37 AM
I think what it comes down to is if God knows the outcome why give us the choice to begin with.

I understand this position, but if reverse causality were possible in this one case, wouldn't that render the problem kind of pointless and make such a judgment fair?

Bert Macklin
04-10-2012, 10:51 AM
How is this thread not filled with Philosoraptor?

Bert Macklin
04-10-2012, 11:15 AM
I think what it comes down to is if God knows the outcome why give us the choice to begin with.

You watch supernatural? Cas posed a great question to dean. "what would you rather peace or freedom?"

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 11:16 AM
Eh I would need to brush up on my medieval philosophy to really get into this. I think I wrote a paper on this once but most of this area of philosophy I sort of pushed to the back of my head when I got through with the class. I also may not be understanding the question right but what youre saying is that because I have free will this causes God's forknowledge of my actions? I guess the problem is if God is testing us whether we make the right decisions or not and we are free to do so but he knows what the outcome will be anyway why create us in the first place? I mean sure you could say you have free will which isn't effected by God, but if youre path is already known it seems to weaken the basis of free will ( the whole idea is your path isn't chosen but here it would be). Idk does that make sense I'm giving you what I recall the conversation going like in my medieval class so idk if I'm helping.

A Perfect Score
04-10-2012, 11:19 AM
You watch supernatural? Cas posed a great question to dean. "what would you rather peace or freedom?"

Are those mutually exclusive? I often associate peace with the idea of being free. Those are both very liberal terms that can mean a plurality of different things, but most oftentimes when people fight or seek "freedom", what they're truly looking for is peace or serenity in their own lives, free from the oppression of others that inhibit that peace.

God I hate philosophy. I spent all year learning about all your fun, wicked theories in regards to literary theory, and my god it made my head explode. Anything outside absurdism, existentialism, and nihilism has no place in my head.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm excited to attend school for another seven years on this stuff so back off APS.

A Perfect Score
04-10-2012, 11:25 AM
I'm excited to attend school for another seven years on this stuff so back off APS.

Do you guys study all the super fun people like Lacan, Lyotard, Derrida, Baudrillard and Kristeva and such? Or do you guys tend to focus on more philosophically based stuff?

I'm curious, I've never taken a Philosophy class. I took Political Science, and that had alot of philosophy in it, but never anything really heavy.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 11:29 AM
We read lyotard earlier this semester in postmodernism, he was one of the better philosophers to read but other than that no one else on your list. It's crazy how much he called about what was going to happen in terms of the universities and education in his post modern condition. My main focus since last semester has been pretty much all on existentialism tho. I'm in a heideggar course right now and it is ******* awesome.

Bert Macklin
04-10-2012, 11:31 AM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/134/230/church.jpg

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/057/637/SmallThumbnail.jpg

http://t.qkme.me/Cq.jpg

A Perfect Score
04-10-2012, 11:32 AM
We read lyotard earlier this semester in postmodernism, he was one of the better philosophers to read but other than that no one else on your list. It's crazy how much he called about what was going to happen in terms of the universities and education in his post modern condition. My main focus since last semester has been pretty much all on existentialism tho. I'm in a heideggar course right now and it is ******* awesome.

Most of my interest in stuff like that stems from existentialism. Do you guys get to read fiction too, as examples? Waiting for Godot radically changed the way I view the world, it's about as much existentialism as one text could ever handle. I do love me some postmodernism though...We learn alot about Gramsci and Raymond Williams as well, constructing on meaning and so on and so forth

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 11:55 AM
for novels/plays we read the plague by Camus, thus spoke zarathustra by Nietzsche, and No exit/the flies by Sartre who is my boy so I went out and bought Nausea as well.

A Perfect Score
04-10-2012, 11:59 AM
for novels/plays we read the plague by Camus, thus spoke zarathustra by Nietzsche, and No exit/the flies by Sartre who is my boy so I went out and bought Nausea as well.

You should check out some of Kierkegaard's early stuff on absurdism, feeds directly into existentialist thought. Really interesting stuff. Sartre has his moments, but Nietzsche and Machiavelli are obviously my favorite philosophers to read. There's something to be said for a man who believes old people should be ground up and used to fuel our machines because they don't contribute to the socio-political-economic sphere anymore.

Also, Nietzche's writings on "the Superman" are some of the most interesting musings I've ever read in any format.

But yeah, if you want to experience the literary sensibilities of philosophical movements, check out Waiting for Godot. You can read it in an hour, but my God does it ask some pressing questions. I love it.

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 12:04 PM
Eh I would need to brush up on my medieval philosophy to really get into this. I think I wrote a paper on this once but most of this area of philosophy I sort of pushed to the back of my head when I got through with the class. I also may not be understanding the question right but what youre saying is that because I have free will this causes God's forknowledge of my actions? I guess the problem is if God is testing us whether we make the right decisions or not and we are free to do so but he knows what the outcome will be anyway why create us in the first place? I mean sure you could say you have free will which isn't effected by God, but if youre path is already known it seems to weaken the basis of free will ( the whole idea is your path isn't chosen but here it would be). Idk does that make sense I'm giving you what I recall the conversation going like in my medieval class so idk if I'm helping.

I feel like I've squared away my concern with the implications of God knowing our actions in regard to salvation. My concern is primarily on the feasibility of reverse causation in determining God's knowledge in the first place. I've run into the problem that nobody seems to discuss the concept in this field.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 12:27 PM
I've read alot of Kierkegaard's stuff, it was interesting but he was my least favortie philosopher in my existential class. One of my first paper's I ever wrote for philosophy was on Machiavelli, I had a blast doing it. Nietzsche's superman or overman gets a bad rep for his sister associating that work with the Nazis party.

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Nietzsche's superman or overman gets a bad rep for his sister associating that work with the Nazis party.

Unlike Heidegger who ****** up his own legacy with those wonderful people. I think it's absurd for people to associate Nietzsche with the Nazis, much like the swastika being stolen by them.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 12:36 PM
Yeah I also think it's absurd to excuse heidegger, a ******* brilliant man, for his allegiance to the Nazis party because he was politically naive. I've read two biographies on him and both authors tried pulling that card and my professor teaching the class went with it. Heidegger seriously has some awesome philosophies but I will not excuse him for being such a huge advocate of the Nazis party. I don't care what his intentions were.

Brothgar
04-10-2012, 12:42 PM
Digging up this old thread in hopes that someone can explain or guide me to an explanation regarding the problem of a reverse or backward causal relationship between freely made choices and God's foreknowledge. I understand the traps of foreknowledge fairly well, but I'm having a hard time figuring out where the problem comes in if you make the claim that because I Freely make a decision, God knows it, due to his foreknowledge. I feel that my actions are still free, and those actions caused God's knowledge that I would do so.

This is just my guess but the idea of foreknowledge implies a preordained destiny. Free will, on the other hand, implies a possibility of two outcomes. So if the future is predetermined then free will can't exist.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 12:46 PM
This is just my guess but the idea of foreknowledge implies a preordained destiny. Free will, on the other hand, implies a possibility of two outcomes. So if the future is predetermined then free will can't exist.

This is what I was trying to say as well
I guess the problem is if God is testing us whether we make the right decisions or not and we are free to do so but he knows what the outcome will be anyway why create us in the first place? I mean sure you could say you have free will which isn't effected by God, but if youre path is already known it seems to weaken the basis of free will ( the whole idea is your path isn't chosen but here it would be).

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 12:48 PM
Yeah I also think it's absurd to excuse heidegger, a ******* brilliant man, for his allegiance to the Nazis party because he was politically naive. I've read two biographies on him and both authors tried pulling that card and my professor teaching the class went with it. Heidegger seriously has some awesome philosophies but I will not excuse him for being such a huge advocate of the Nazis party. I don't care what his intentions were.

I think that Sartre's thoughts on freedom and responsibility of actions applies well to Heidegger's political leanings. No matter what the consequences of rejecting the Nazis was, he is as responsible for his actions as someone who set out to eradicate the non-Aryans on a whim.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 12:50 PM
I think that Sartre's thoughts on freedom and responsibility of actions applies well to Heidegger's political leanings. No matter what the consequences of rejecting the Nazis was, he is as responsible for his actions as someone who set out to eradicate the non-Aryans on a whim.

Sartre's ideas on free will is actually what got me into his writings. His no nonsense stance on action is pretty radical but something I think we should try to live by.

mqtirishfan
04-10-2012, 01:02 PM
Sartre's ideas on free will is actually what got me into his writings. His no nonsense stance on action is pretty radical but something I think we should try to live by.

It's really rather interesting, particularly when determining one's moral or ethical philosophy. I'm intrigued by the application of his ideas in regard to such issues as the banality of evil and moral luck. I feel that to some degree, particularly in the case of moral luck, this stance becomes problematic in application. While it's theoretically ideal to live one's life this way and thus appropriate when discussing existentialism, I'm not sure it can be seen through in practice.

CJSchneider
04-10-2012, 01:05 PM
This is just my guess but the idea of foreknowledge implies a preordained destiny. Free will, on the other hand, implies a possibility of two outcomes. So if the future is predetermined then free will can't exist.

Isiah 55:9
The human mind can not grasp the complete concept of eternity as well as pre-knowledge not meaning predetermination.

Jvig43
04-10-2012, 01:06 PM
It's really rather interesting, particularly when determining one's moral or ethical philosophy. I'm intrigued by the application of his ideas in regard to such issues as the banality of evil and moral luck. I feel that to some degree, particularly in the case of moral luck, this stance becomes problematic in application. While it's theoretically ideal to live one's life this way and thus appropriate when discussing existentialism, I'm not sure it can be seen through in practice.

I wrote my final paper in existentialism on that very topic defending an ethics/creating an ethics that works within an existential system. It really depends on what kind of ethical system you take up is where this becomes problematic. I tend to lean with Foot's critique of Kant that there is no determination to do anything and that makes it all the more good in itself, good for the sake of good.

hawkeye123
05-16-2012, 11:42 PM
We were discussing this in my philosophy class today and wasn't sure where else to post it.

What if there was a race much more intelligent than humans; would it be ethnically right for them to use us for food just like humans use animals for food?

Jvig43
05-16-2012, 11:45 PM
Of course. If we justify ourselves feeding off of other animals as being the dominant species in the food chain, we can't really ***** if a species more intelligent than us feeds on our kind as well. If we lose our spot on top of the chain we just have to adapt, no sense at that point arguing over whether it is ethical haha.

mqtirishfan
05-16-2012, 11:46 PM
We were discussing this in my philosophy class today and wasn't sure where else to post it.

What if there was a race much more intelligent than humans; would it be ethnically right for them to use us for food just like humans use animals for food?

It would depend on context. From our viewpoint, it'd certainly not be ethical, but from their viewpoint it would be. I feel like what we consider to be ethical universals are only universal in that most humans are essentially equal. We would be inferior to this race, and they would have their own ethics.

Jvig43
05-16-2012, 11:49 PM
It would be bias from both sides, but since we have seemed to adopt a justification for eating lesser intelligent and or capable animals to satisfy our own ethical system we can't ***** if something comes along and bumps us off our thrown using our own ethics on the matter. It would be hypocritical.

mqtirishfan
05-17-2012, 12:16 AM
It would be bias from both sides, but since we have seemed to adopt a justification for eating lesser intelligent and or capable animals to satisfy our own ethical system we can't ***** if something comes along and bumps us off our thrown using our own ethics on the matter. It would be hypocritical.

I don't think hypocrisy is unethical, though. It seems uncontroversial to make the claim that eating other humans is universally unethical. Eating lesser animals is not consider universally wrong. As beings that are capable of having rational discourse regarding ethics, we would be seemingly justified in making the claim that it is unethical for more advanced beings to eat us.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 12:26 AM
We were discussing this in my philosophy class today and wasn't sure where else to post it.

What if there was a race much more intelligent than humans; would it be ethnically right for them to use us for food just like humans use animals for food?

Well it depends on the frame of reference. But to put it another way. We don't eat monkey's in the industrial world nor do we eat dolphin those two are the next two on the intelligence hierarchy. So I would imagine that this superior animal (if it had human ethics) would likely feel the same way.

Cigaro
05-17-2012, 12:52 AM
Well it depends on the frame of reference. But to put it another way. We don't eat monkey's in the industrial world nor do we eat dolphin those two are the next two on the intelligence hierarchy. So I would imagine that this superior animal (if it had human ethics) would likely feel the same way.

I don't think not eating monkeys or dolphins is related to their intelligence, rather a historic inefficiency in harvesting them.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 01:01 AM
I don't think not eating monkeys or dolphins is related to their intelligence, rather a historic inefficiency in harvesting them.

Well I would say that for monkeys but Dolphins are just as easy as Tuna.

Cigaro
05-17-2012, 01:04 AM
Well I would say that for monkeys but Dolphins are just as easy as Tuna.

They're far less numerous and travel in smaller groups, and I'm not sure of much meat they yield(when compared to the work it takes to catch them). Likely very inefficient to catch, and thus no opportunity to become a staple of any diet or people.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 01:12 AM
They're far less numerous and travel in smaller groups, and I'm not sure of much meat they yield(when compared to the work it takes to catch them). Likely very inefficient to catch, and thus no opportunity to become a staple of any diet or people.

Meh fair enough. But current day many if not most people buy dolphin free tuna for the moral objection to eating dolphin.

WCH
05-17-2012, 01:58 AM
I think that people object to killing/eating Dolphins for the same reasons they object to killing dogs or cats: we like them, because they entertain us. Crows are one of the more intelligent species on the planet, seem to be self aware, and have demonstrated the ability to use tools in a novel fashion. If you kill one, though, nobody cares.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 07:45 AM
Question: Can we effectively communicate with this species?

Caddy
05-17-2012, 07:56 AM
I think that people object to killing/eating Dolphins for the same reasons they object to killing dogs or cats: we like them, because they entertain us. Crows are one of the more intelligent species on the planet, seem to be self aware, and have demonstrated the ability to use tools in a novel fashion. If you kill one, though, nobody cares.

Isn't it just because Dolphins are somewhat endangered?

jrdrylie
05-17-2012, 08:07 AM
Isn't it just because Dolphins are somewhat endangered?

Many fish are endangered (I know dolphin is a mammal) but we still eat them.

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 09:03 AM
Question: Can we effectively communicate with this species?

If they are more intelligent then we are I'm going to assume that at some basic level we could communicate with them.

I don't think hypocrisy is unethical, though. It seems uncontroversial to make the claim that eating other humans is universally unethical. Eating lesser animals is not consider universally wrong. As beings that are capable of having rational discourse regarding ethics, we would be seemingly justified in making the claim that it is unethical for more advanced beings to eat us.

But that is exactly my point, we rationalize that by claiming that those species are just of lesser intelligence than we are and that somehow makes it more ethical for us to consume them in the manner we do. If these higher beings of intellect take the same stance I just don't see how we could justify it being unethical seeing that we use the same type of reasoning to justify our way of eating off lesser intelligent animals. I mean there are even philosophers and psychologists who would argue that animals have a sense of ethics as well (not that I buy that), every creature is going to have an objection with its own kind being hunted and killed. I just dont think that we have any basis to say that since we are at least more intellectual and have a relative system of ethics to follow regarding what we eat we can say it is unethical for higher beings to eat us. The only beings it matters to that we can think ethically are ourselves, these other beings would have their own set of ethics which being a hypothetical situation we cant really assume what it is but if they are eating us than I'd assume that their ethical theory would justify that behavior. I just can't even buy the whole argument that since we can rationalize and have discourse on ethics that we somehow have proven ourselves ethically wrong to eat. Why would they care in the least bit that we are capable of such things, when we ourselves pretty much rationalize the killing of any species by claiming they are just not as intelligent as we are? I'm going to assume they would take the same stance.

And hypocrisy may not be unethical, but it is certainly unsound logic.

thefalconer
05-17-2012, 10:02 AM
speaking of eating animals.. this is a really disgusting video. don't watch if you're eating something.


6yYcInK9jK4


totally relevant to philosophy.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 10:11 AM
speaking of eating animals.. this is a really disgusting video. don't watch if you're eating something.


6yYcInK9jK4


totally relevant to philosophy.

OK so I was 100% cool with that until the ******* thing started moving on the plate.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 10:24 AM
If they are more intelligent then we are I'm going to assume that at some basic level we could communicate with them.




The reason I ask is, what would you do if a pig stopped while being chased and pleaded to you, in perfect English no less, that your actions were unethical. Would that make you more or less inclined to turn him into bacon?

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 11:11 AM
The reason I ask is, what would you do if a pig stopped while being chased and pleaded to you, in perfect English no less, that your actions were unethical. Would that make you more or less inclined to turn him into bacon?

I mean they basically do try to communicate when they are squealing as you chase them, or a dog whimpering when you beat it. I mean whose to say we would be intelligent enough to speak their language, our language could sound like a dog barking to them. Again for us we would say it was unethical because we are being eaten, but I would bet that they would rationalize it the same way we do when we eat lesser prey and for us to turn around and be upset over using the same logic we use but only because were the ones being eaten is just unsound in my opinion. I just would take the side that it would be perfectly acceptable for them to eat us if theyre using the same logic we use when it comes to how we eat other species. I'm not a fan of you can have your cake and eat it to, which is what it feels like when we rationalize our behavior with other creatures one way but don't uphold it if another species comes along and uses it against ourselves.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 11:15 AM
I mean they basically do try to communicate when they are squealing as you chase them, or a dog whimpering when you beat it. I mean whose to say we would be intelligent enough to speak their language, our language could sound like a dog barking to them. Again for us we would say it was unethical because we are being eaten, but I would bet that they would rationalize it the same way we do when we eat lesser prey and for us to turn around and be upset over using the same logic we use but only because were the ones being eaten is just unsound in my opinion. I just would take the side that it would be perfectly acceptable for them to eat us if theyre using the same logic we use when it comes to how we eat other species. I'm not a fan of you can have your cake and eat it to, which is what it feels like when we rationalize our behavior with other creatures one way but don't uphold it if another species comes along and uses it against ourselves.

But that is why I asked could we effectively communicate and indicated the pig could speak in your language. Of course any animal we ethically eat cries out in fear as the slaughter process brings them closer to being a meal. Alas, if it was in our language, would that change anything?

jrdrylie
05-17-2012, 11:20 AM
But that is why I asked could we effectively communicate and indicated the pig could speak in your language. Of course any animal we ethically eat cries out in fear as the slaughter process brings them closer to being a meal. Alas, if it was in our language, would that change anything?

If cows, fish, pigs, and chickens could speak English, I definitely wouldn't eat them.

eaglesalltheway
05-17-2012, 11:26 AM
If cows, fish, pigs, and chickens could speak English, I definitely wouldn't eat them.

OK, but now what if you spoke their language?

Personally, I feel communication is almost a moot point. If you feel like you've deemed them a lesser species already, they're a meal. Everybody knows the animals that eventually become our food don't look forward to the final process, and even though the people who butcher them don't know what exactly they are trying to communicate, its a safe assumption that they aren't thankful that they're finally being put to good use.

If a far advanced species would come along and decide that we were no longer the top of all food chains, well thats gotta suck for us, because what they'd be doing is no different than what we do, regardless of our ability to communicate with them or not. I gotta side with Jvig. However we got here is irrelevant, but we are in the fortunate opportunity to be at the top of almost every food chain. If something were to happen that changes it, it doesn't make it any less moral if another species would eat us than what we do for food.

eaglesalltheway
05-17-2012, 11:31 AM
I also do believe that some animals have a sense of ethics, though it is probably different than what humans call ethics. For humans the focus is on equality or fair opportunity, but with a pack of wolves for example, dominant males and females get first dibs on their prey. Usually because they have the most responsibility and do most of the hunting work, so you get a certain amount based on what you provide for the pack, as an example. "Lesser" wolves who challenge that face repercussions, or need to step up and take on a more dominant role, both in the pack and in hunting.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 11:33 AM
OK, but now what if you spoke their language?

Personally, I feel communication is almost a moot point.

Ahh, but your conscience is very critical to this issue. As JR stated, if those animals could speak English he would not eat them. Why is that? I assume because their squeals and guttural moans would now convey emotional messages that would deeper impact our conscience.

SuperPacker
05-17-2012, 11:36 AM
I don't think it would change much. I think we'd just knock them unconscious before killing them. If someone's job is to kill the animals and then sell the meat for money, i doubt they're going to stop because the animal can speak.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 11:36 AM
Now, if you will excuse me. I am headed to an awards assembly. Afterwards I will go to lunch and feast on a hamburger, most likely topped with bacon. The cheese that accompanies the meal was merely stolen from an animal and did not cause its death.

eaglesalltheway
05-17-2012, 11:39 AM
Ahh, but your conscience is very critical to this issue. As JR stated, if those animals could speak English he would not eat them. Why is that? I assume because their squeals and guttural moans would now convey emotional messages that would deeper impact our conscience.

Except thats almost a separate, individual thing, that is completely different from it being ethical or immoral. I totally agree that if a pig politely asked me not to turn him into bacon, I don't think I'd be able to do it. But if it did such a thing, and I didn't care, and enjoyed delicious bacon anyway, does that make it any less moral or ethical? Maybe, maybe not. Though people have shown in past before, if hungry enough, they'll eat another human (Donner pass is a prime example, though I realize the people that were eaten were already dead), so if it were a talking pig, cow, chicken, etc, I can't say I'd think it were immoral or unethical. As it is now we all know the animals are trying to communcate that they don't wish to be killed, but we do it anyway. What is the difference whether we know exactly what they are trying to communicate or not...?

jrdrylie
05-17-2012, 11:50 AM
Ahh, but your conscience is very critical to this issue. As JR stated, if those animals could speak English he would not eat them. Why is that? I assume because their squeals and guttural moans would now convey emotional messages that would deeper impact our conscience.

This is basically right. The part in bold is also why I would never eat a dog. I have had a dog for my entire life. I've learned to recognize their behaviors, sounds, and facial expressions to know what is going on inside their head and they are able to convey emotions that are understandable to me despite not speaking their language. Dogs are a lower-species, no doubt about it. But due to the emotional bonds I have formed with them, I would never eat them. And I feel that we as humans could convey similar or even greater emotional messages to whatever higher species would come along.

eaglesalltheway
05-17-2012, 11:56 AM
This is basically right. The part in bold is also why I would never eat a dog. I have had a dog for my entire life. I've learned to recognize their behaviors, sounds, and facial expressions to know what is going on inside their head and they are able to convey emotions that are understandable to me despite not speaking their language. Dogs are a lower-species, no doubt about it. But due to the emotional bonds I have formed with them, I would never eat them. And I feel that we as humans could convey similar or even greater emotional messages to whatever higher species would come along.

But what I'm saying (and I think Jvig too) is saying is that regardless of what we'd be able to communicate or to what extent, does that make them eating us immoral or unethical? For me, the answer is no. Its incredibly unfortunate if I'm talking to a being that far outweighs my intellect and ask it to not eat me, then it does anyway. Really, I'm not even looking from it from a human's perspective or whatever-this-creature-would-be's perspective. I look at it from nature's perspective, if you will. From a completely neutral standpoint, for me, the dominant creature killing a lesser creature for food isn't immoral or unethical.

jrdrylie
05-17-2012, 12:02 PM
But what I'm saying (and I think Jvig too) is saying is that regardless of what we'd be able to communicate or to what extent, does that make them eating us immoral or unethical? For me, the answer is no. Its incredibly unfortunate if I'm talking to a being that far outweighs my intellect and ask it to not eat me, then it does anyway. Really, I'm not even looking from it from a human's perspective or whatever-this-creature-would-be's perspective. I look at it from nature's perspective, if you will. From a completely neutral standpoint, for me, the dominant creature killing a lesser creature for food isn't immoral or unethical.

Absolutely not. It would be very hypocritical for me to eat meat my entire life and then say it is wrong for a higher species to eat me. As for dominant creatures killing a lesser creature, we already have examples of that with humans. If a human is swimming in the ocean and is eaten by a shark, is that wrong? No, the shark needs food, he is faster and stronger than that human in the water. There is nothing immoral about eating that swimmer.

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Absolutely not. It would be very hypocritical for me to eat meat my entire life and then say it is wrong for a higher species to eat me. As for dominant creatures killing a lesser creature, we already have examples of that with humans. If a human is swimming in the ocean and is eaten by a shark, is that wrong? No, the shark needs food, he is faster and stronger than that human in the water. There is nothing immoral about eating that swimmer.

I feel relatively the same way about this situation.

Cj if the pig could speak english perhaps it would cause me to reflect on the situation a little longer, although hearing any animal cry out in pain really bothers me regardless of what it is to begin with. Regardless the way I justify letting this happen is going to be the same way I will say that a higher species using the same rational is going to be ethically justified in participating in the same practice. Saying it would be unethical because we are above other species and are able to contemplate the ethical implications is putting way too much importance on human beings. If we get knocked off the top of the food chain, we adapt we don't just sit here on our high horses thinking that because we are more rational than other animals that that makes it unethical to eat us or that there is some importance to our race.

I think its incredibly self centered to think that were justified in slaughtering countless other animals and causing many to become extinct because we are more intellectual and capable of doing so, and then turn around and saying beings higher than we who use the same logic against us are unethical.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 01:23 PM
I'd have to think that if the animal could speak at even a preschool level in English people wouldn't want to eat it I know I'd give up Bacon if the pig talked like a person. It is an interesting disconnect isn't it? The disconnect between us and our food.

jrdrylie
05-17-2012, 01:45 PM
I have a feeling that if I had grown up with pigs, cows, and chickens, I would be a vegetarian. I don't like to think about what I'm eating when I'm having a nice steak. I have no problem eating venison, but I cringe when I see pictures of my friends holding a deer they just shot and I know I could never go hunting myself.

But it's kind of weird. I could never kill a dog, horse, deer, or any other mammal for sport. But I have no problems stepping on a bug, killing a snake with an axe, or going fishing. I guess I have my own hierarchy of lesser animals. I'm pretty sure it goes

1. Humans
2. Dogs
3. All other mammals
4. Birds
5. Amphibians
6. Reptiles
7. Insects

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 02:05 PM
For the record, I never stated whether I felt it was moral or ethical. I merely asked a question that presented another level to the question. Based on my beliefs in other areas, I think the actual question has an answer that is impossible - but I digress.




Cj if the pig could speak english perhaps it would cause me to reflect on the situation a little longer,

And what would you be reflecting on? Surely not whether your blade was sharp enough to slice the pigs throat in one slash so as to induce the least amount of suffering. No, you would be reflecting on whether your actions where then moral and ethical. I contest all the while, the pig would be making both an intellectual and emotional appeal that would make it near impossible to kill the animal.



If we get knocked off the top of the food chain, we adapt we don't just sit here on our high horses thinking that because we are more rational than other animals that that makes it unethical to eat us or that there is some importance to our race.



I imagine, from my own intuitive thought process as well as having read a multitude of Sci-Fi novels, that humans would band together, promising to fight of this other life form, while defending our species.

The location of Pig, Cow, and Chicken Resistance HQ remains a mystery.

My Third-pounder Angus burger with bacon was, however, delicious.
I heard neither scream nor utterance of any kind.

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 02:10 PM
I eat meat for breakfast lunch and dinner but if I'm going to rationalize it one way, I'm not going to try and make a case that were any different if another species comes along and does us in the same way.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 02:12 PM
I eat meat for breakfast lunch and dinner but if I'm going to rationalize it one way, I'm not going to try and make a case that were any different if another species comes along and does us in the same way.

Assuming that this other life-form can in no way understand our specif request to be spared - Right?

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 02:20 PM
Even if they can. When it comes down to it, the fact that something can speak doesn't make it any less horrible that you are killing another creature. It just helps us relate to them more, and thus makes it a harder decision. Whether they can or can't it doesnt matter, I'm not going to try to object to being eaten if all these years of my life I was doing the same thing they are about to do to me. I'd just fight for my survival.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 02:36 PM
Even if they can. When it comes down to it, the fact that something can speak doesn't make it any less horrible that you are killing another creature.

It may be upon this simple point that we may have to disagree. I also highlighted speak as I think this entire argument hinges on "effectively communicate" effectively meaning I can appeal specifically to both your emotional and intellectual nature as a fellow sentient being.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 02:47 PM
It might be weird but I feel less guilty eating an animal that I've killed myself.

Jvig43
05-17-2012, 02:54 PM
It is a disagreement, I don't actually kill my own animals and therefore live in a world of ignorance when it comes to how I enjoy my much loved meats. But when it comes down to it, them having the ability to talk doesn't change the fact that you are still killing an animal of lesser intelligence. I'm also assuming that these new higher beings wouldnt understand our language either.

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 02:57 PM
I think of the original scenario we would find it immoral but the higher beings wouldn't give a **** ... as they turn us to ****.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 03:04 PM
I'm also assuming that these new higher beings wouldnt understand our language either.

OK, let's build on that.
What would humans do as a species if we knew we were being hunted for food?

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 03:05 PM
By the way, this whole conversation made me think of this.

8Sp-VFBbjpE

Brothgar
05-17-2012, 03:08 PM
OK, let's build on that.
What would humans do as a species if we knew we were being hunted for food?

I feel as though it would depend on the manner of our new higher species overlords. I personally wouldn't mind being farmed like an expensive veal. But the way I see it if the higher species acted like humans do half the people would go to the farm to live their lives out in comfort the other woulds likely hide in caves and fight.

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 03:12 PM
I feel as though it would depend on the manner of our new higher species overlords. I personally wouldn't mind being farmed like an expensive veal. But the way I see it if the higher species acted like humans do half the people would go to the farm to live their lives out in comfort the other woulds likely hide in caves and fight.

When a cow arms itself, that is when hamburgers should come off the menu.

DoughBoy
05-17-2012, 03:20 PM
I like it when they fight, it is better that way.

fenikz
05-17-2012, 03:23 PM
If another species found it's way to our planet we would have no chance in any fight just based on the level of their technology

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 03:44 PM
I like it when they fight, it is better that way.

http://images.wikia.com/shawshank/images/3/3f/Bogs.gif

Your new NFLDC nickname is Bogs Diamond

CJSchneider
05-17-2012, 03:47 PM
If another species found it's way to our planet we would have no chance in any fight just based on the level of their technology

That's not the issue (your statement, if possible, is one I would agree upon).

The question now becomes if we could meaningfully articulate with this other species, and they choose to make us a food source, would their actions be immoral or unethical?

WCH
05-18-2012, 10:33 AM
This article (2009) seems relevant to the discussion: Humans may have hunted Neanderthals into extinciton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal).

FWIW, there is a long-standing theory in anthropological circles that basically proposes that we systematically eradicated all of the other "human" primates. The more plausible theory is that we had an ridiculously advanced ability to create novel tools (that is our hallmark as a species, after all) and the other groups just couldn't compete for resources.

mqtirishfan
08-27-2012, 04:13 PM
Someone in my World History class just tried to argue that "philosophically" science is older than the world. I almost went over and punched him.

Brothgar
08-27-2012, 04:39 PM
Someone in my World History class just tried to argue that "philosophically" science is older than the world. I almost went over and punched him.

I get the concept although it has nothing to do with philosophy.

A Perfect Score
09-22-2012, 10:47 PM
Boom, bumping this to ask you crazy mofos for some help. I dunno how much overlap there might be, but I'm taking a really intense Lit Theory course on Biopolitics. Was wondering if any of you guys had experience with the theory and would mind shooting the **** about some of the denser stuff to see if we can't pull some of it apart.

Brothgar
09-23-2012, 12:35 AM
Boom, bumping this to ask you crazy mofos for some help. I dunno how much overlap there might be, but I'm taking a really intense Lit Theory course on Biopolitics. Was wondering if any of you guys had experience with the theory and would mind shooting the **** about some of the denser stuff to see if we can't pull some of it apart.

Depending on the subject I may or may not be able to do this.

thefalconer
12-09-2012, 09:58 AM
T3JzcCviNDk