Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philosophy thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
    So what are you saying? It's not the only or main reason, but that for some small reason it is done for glory? Yeah, I'm calling ******** on that one.
    I am just saying throwing oneself on a grenade is not always a selfless act. I am not saying it is not an honorable act. I am not saying someone who throws himself on a grenade should not be considered a hero. I am saying that it isn't always done just for the good of others. Now I am not inside other peoples heads and nobody can really know for sure what someone is thinking before dying to save others after making a split second decision but I suspect that glory does play a part in some cases and I am sure glory has played a main role in some cases. I also think it is likely that many times glory doesn't play any kind of role at all.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
      Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.
      that's the exception, not the rule. It's not a universal truth (I don't believe in that either) but the reason we view a guy like that as a hero is because it's exceptional. Which in turn indicates that rare acts of selflessness are highly appreciated by society as a whole, which in turn creates an incentive for others to be selfless too.

      Also, guys who throw themselves on grenades to save their brothers in arms are badass.

      Sig by Fenikz

      I remember NFLDC
      don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
        How many colors exist in your world?
        I'm afraid I don't follow you there?




        2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Addict View Post
          that's the exception, not the rule. It's not a universal truth (I don't believe in that either) but the reason we view a guy like that as a hero is because it's exceptional. Which in turn indicates that rare acts of selflessness are highly appreciated by society as a whole, which in turn creates an incentive for others to be selfless too.

          Also, guys who throw themselves on grenades to save their brothers in arms are badass.
          Which will limit my involvement here for obvious religious reasons

          I never said true selflessness was an everyday occurrence, and I do get your point, but if I can prove that anything, regardless of what it is, is rare, I have still proved its existence.




          2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
            Because one sees the value of another or more then one life (comrade/ comrades) as being worth more then one's own (self), selflessness exists.
            I agree, it does exist. But complete selflessness does not. Sacrificing yourself for others is an act of selflessness, but because your name and legacy is benefited, even a little bit, from the act, it is not an act of complete selflessness. That's how I view it anyway, and it's not to take away from the act itself.

            But like bf51 bluntly stated, there is no such thing as black and white. You can't be 100% selfless or 100% selfish. It will always fall somewhere in between.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Manic Depressant View Post
              This discussion is pretty interesting. Excuse me if I sound ignorant because my only philosophy training is a couple university courses which I slept through.

              I'm just wondering about the bolded part of your statement. Could you go into more detail about why you believe this because intuitively it seems to be the exact opposite for me.
              Well, I guess it would require me to define what exactly 'success' is, which honestly I'm uncomfortable doing.

              But let's say that it's some type of material benefit, and eschew the immaterial. I could come up with lots of anecdotal examples, but then I'd be no better than anyone else that I'm accusing of being far too rigid in their thinking.

              So, let's start from a few basic premises. Everyone is involved in some type of societal and governmental system. The efficiency and guidelines of that system will greatly affect the degree to which that person is able to succeed or not succeed personally. In the absence of any structure, it is almost completely arbitrary. People like to act like the absence of governmental structure promotes individual success, but in fact it's absolutely the opposite. It's called anarchy, it doesn't work.

              Taking it a step further, assuming all governmental systems are equal, how does one succeed within that society? Do they do it purely on their own initiative? Of course not. As we've already established, one of the great promoters of invidual success is the structure of society. Furthermore, even working within that system, it's clear that those who are born with great advantages will likely do much better in life than those that aren't. A basic comparison of societal bifurcation would score that point home.

              I'm not saying people can't improve their lives (again, assuming we can really define what that means). Nor am I saying that people should march in lockstep to whatever is declared the "will of the people", which is one of the main reason why totalitarian socialism never works. What I am saying, however, is the Herbert Spencer ethos about utilitarian individualism is a complete myth. It has never existed, it never will.


              Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
                Which will limit my involvement here for obvious religious reasons
                I understand that. I put it between whatever these things are called in enlish () because I didn't want to drag religion into it, just wanted to indicate where I was coming from.

                Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
                I never said true selflessness was an everyday occurrence, and I do get your point, but if I can prove that anything, regardless of what it is, is rare, I have still proved its existence.
                I guess I didn't really translate my thoughts very well. You're correct in saying it does exist. Even though I do think that even appearent selflessness has, to a certain extent, selfish motivations.
                Last edited by Addict; 05-03-2009, 07:34 PM.

                Sig by Fenikz

                I remember NFLDC
                don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by iowatreat54 View Post
                  I agree, it does exist. But complete selflessness does not. Sacrificing yourself for others is an act of selflessness, but because your name and legacy is benefited, even a little bit, from the act, it is not an act of complete selflessness. That's how I view it anyway, and it's not to take away from the act itself.

                  But like bf51 bluntly stated, there is no such thing as black and white. You can't be 100% selfless or 100% selfish. It will always fall somewhere in between.
                  But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


                  I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.




                  2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
                    But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


                    I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.
                    okay trying hard not to drag religion into this, I'm sure you'll do the same. But how does that work?

                    I mean, I can't bring myself to believe that there is something as simple as pure evil or pure good. I'm just curious of how that works in your mind.

                    Sig by Fenikz

                    I remember NFLDC
                    don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                      Well, I guess it would require me to define what exactly 'success' is, which honestly I'm uncomfortable doing.

                      But let's say that it's some type of material benefit, and eschew the immaterial. I could come up with lots of anecdotal examples, but then I'd be no better than anyone else that I'm accusing of being far too rigid in their thinking.

                      So, let's start from a few basic premises. Everyone is involved in some type of societal and governmental system. The efficiency and guidelines of that system will greatly affect the degree to which that person is able to succeed or not succeed personal. In the absence of any structure, it is almost completely arbitrary. People like to act like the absence of governmental structure promotes individual success, but in fact it's absolutely the opposite. It's called anarchy, it doesn't work.

                      Taking it a step further, assuming all governmental systems are equal, how does one succeed within that society? Do they do it purely on their own initiative? Of course not. As we've already established, one of the great promoters of invidual success is the structure of society. Furthermore, even working within that system, it's clear that those who are born with great advantages will likely do much better in life than those that don't. A basic comparison of societal bifurcation would score that point home.

                      I'm not saying people can't improve their lives (again, assuming we can really define what that means). Nor am I saying that people should march in lockstep to whatever is declared the "will of the people", which is one of the main reason why totalitarian socialism never works. What I am saying, however, is the Herbert Spencer ethos about utilitarian individualism is a complete myth. It has never existed, it never will.
                      I understand that one's success is not determined solely by their own actions. Obviously the structure you pointed out is necessary. However, the structure is the same for everybody. For example, a homeless person and a rich person are operating within the same political system in the US.

                      Now obviously the situation you are born into has a lot to do with your success. That said, I think you're undermining the individual quite a bit, particularly in this day and age where the barriers to monetary success have dropped quite a bit. I just read a statistic that said 2/3rds of the world's billionaires are self-made. I'm sure the millionaire statistic would be similar if not even bigger. I think that points to individual merit having a ton to do with success.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
                        But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


                        I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.
                        I don't see it as taking away from the act, though. I believe that sacrificing one's life for others is the most honorable thing you can do in life.

                        Your 2nd part is where we disagree. Because I do not believe in absolutes, I do not see it as taking away from the act.

                        Even though the self benefit is unintentional, it still exists. So, imo, while it can be selfless in intent, the act itself cannot be 100% selfless.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Manic Depressant View Post
                          I understand that one's success is not determined solely by their own actions. Obviously the structure you pointed out is necessary. However, the structure is the same for anybody. For example, a homeless person and a rich person are operating within the same political system in the US.
                          False. A homeless person has drastically different legal rights than someone that's rich.

                          Now obviously the situation you are born into has a lot to do with your success. That said, I think you're undermining the individual quite a bit, particularly in this day and age where the barriers to monetary success have dropped quite a bit.
                          This is one of the most economically disparate societies in the last few centuries.

                          As for the billionaire statistic, I would only really be able to address that if provided the source, to see what exactly their guidelines are.


                          Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Addict View Post
                            okay trying hard not to drag religion into this, I'm sure you'll do the same. But how does that work?

                            I mean, I can't bring myself to believe that there is something as simple as pure evil or pure good. I'm just curious of how that works in your mind.
                            This may be that one instance where I can not do so without bring religion into the argument of true selflessness. It may also be why I reacted so strongly.
                            I will concede to the point that selflessness in a vast majority of situations serves the self in other means if you will concede that true selflessness, in extremely rare cases, exists.




                            2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by iowatreat54 View Post
                              I don't see it as taking away from the act, though. I believe that sacrificing one's life for others is the most honorable thing you can do in life.

                              Your 2nd part is where we disagree. Because I do not believe in absolutes, I do not see it as taking away from the act.

                              Even though the self benefit is unintentional, it still exists. So, imo, while it can be selfless in intent, the act itself cannot be 100% selfless.
                              Explain how the unintentional self benefit in giving your life for another works.




                              2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                                False. A homeless person has drastically different legal rights than someone that's rich.
                                You beat me to this. I was about to say, poor people have the police crash their doors in and are dragged out in cuffs and then provided court-appointed attorneys who are often under-paid and overworked. Meanwhile, "white-collar criminals" or whatever term you would like to use are brought in by police typically in a "polite" manner. Then their money allows for them to afford lawyers who are often far more talented at what they do than court-appointed attorneys.

                                Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                                This is one of the most economically disparate societies in the last few centuries.
                                Again, something you beat me to. The likelihood of someone moving up from one class to a higher one is very unlikely. Not to mention that the possession of wealth in America is almost entirely concentrated in about 1-2% of the people in our society.

                                Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information