2008-01-15, 15:25 | Link #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I majored in Philosophy and the opening post was pretty hard to understand, one of the reasons being that "metaphysical" is being used in the wrong way. I certainly have wrapped myself up in similar convoluted thoughts after chasing my own shadows so seeing this thread was a minor delight.. Now to engage in some discourse.
Quote:
Quote:
Using the word "assumption" is inappropriate to the situation because the language really makes it seem like it's unfair or unjustified. Taking a purely metaphysical (by your usage) or two-dimensional ethical approach does not really help flesh out the details. We need to know more about criminal psychology - are murderers repeat offenders? How often? Are there a sub-type of murderers that are repeat offenders and others who are not? How do we differentiate them? Then there is the social aspect, how do we handle criminals? Do we jail them, and continue to feed them and provide them with accomodation? Do we rehabilitate those which can be rehabilitated? Should society bear the cost of feeding and housing its criminals? (Note that prison cells in the US are often full to the brim -- such that offenders scheduled to be jailed are sometimes let free.) I guess I've come across as abit confusing, mainly because I think the original shape of your point was confusing as well.. I don't quite know where to start. But in all I would suppose that by isolating factors to just being metaphysical and ethical in this problem, it doesn't help to answer the questions that you have because bringing in other concepts like "selfish" and "assumption" far exceed the boundaries of the metaphysical and ethical into the social and so forth. Your value system is also abit weird. Wouldn't killing every single sentient living thing in the world then be something that completely ruins the value system? Since value is relative and subjective; and in a universe without subjects there would be no value.. Oh well. |
||
2008-01-15, 15:55 | Link #22 | ||||
Junior Member
|
Quote:
The quantity of matter is constant, it is only it's relationship and expansion of space that stretches it. 6_6 My murderer didn't wish for the consequence, it was imposed on him. So he's stronger than the imposers but they outnumber him, i.e. democracy. :/ the rule of the common (often stupid) creatures who hold the majority ^__^ Eugenism isn't necessairily strength oriented. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry if I couldn't satisfy your hunger for something intriguing, but it was just a thought I felt like projecting for some response. To correct myself in the process. And if you are as qualified as you say you are, this'll be more of a learning experience for me than it'll be a debate or a discussion. ^__^Touché |
||||
2008-01-15, 16:31 | Link #23 | ||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
And do you believe matter is the only measure of value? That if I cut you in twain, in doesn't matter, because we'll still have two halves, equal to the whole? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, you entirely fail to grasp the notions of choice, responsibility, and consequences. We, all of us, make choices hoping to get more good consequences than bad. If those choices include putting murderers in jail, hoping it'll be good for us, well, tough for the murderers, but they certainly can't come crying that they just chose to kill someone and since we all have free will, it's fine. By the same logic, imprisoning them is fine too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2008-01-15, 16:49 | Link #24 | |||||
Junior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What you call 'choice' is a somewhat unjust decision nonetheless. When you put them in jail hoping it'll make your lives better/safer, you only end up retaliating, ruining 2 lives. Ethics aren't logical at all, so as I said.. 'metaphysically, we should be able to go around killing each other' and it wasn't an argument rather a discussion. You've only made it clear you side ethics and morality ^_^ But being the first one to actually entirely stick to the topic, I commend you. Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure you're still unclear, and so am I or I wouldn't post this for dicussion but rather as a definite article somewhere. It's a hypothesis for a hypothesis. ^__^'' |
|||||
2008-01-15, 18:08 | Link #25 | ||
Soy Bean
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OC California (nothing like the show)
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
While I do not agree with you on a person who does nothing with their life is worthless, this thread is still interesting. |
||
2008-01-15, 18:18 | Link #27 | |
Soy Bean
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OC California (nothing like the show)
Age: 35
|
Quote:
It is impossible to destroy/kill a 2 because it is not a physical item. The essence of a human (their consciousness, spirit, soul, whatever you prefer) is also not a physical item and cannot be destroyed likewise. Every person has some intrinsic value because of this. Just my way of thinking about it, but it very easily could be the fact that I don't like the idea of death being the end of it all. |
|
2008-01-15, 20:40 | Link #29 | ||
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
So your life is predetermined, leading to what I said in my post that you quoted.... Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-01-15, 21:00 | Link #30 | |
An Intellectual Idiot
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Internet, ranging from the World of Warcraft------Deviantart----and much more!..My mostly WoW
Age: 32
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-01-15, 23:10 | Link #31 | ||||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But dualism does not in any way suggest that life has no inherent, universal value of its own. It merely proposes the view that where there is life, there is death. Where there is beauty, there is ugliness. Where there is kindness, there is cruelty. One does not define the other. It merely is. To put it another way, before you can truly “live”, you need to accept death. To understand beauty, you need to know what is ugly. So on and so forth. This by no means imply that your life is meaningless. It’s merely a suggestion of how to live in acceptance of the Way (Tao). Quote:
Quoting from Wikipedia: “Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.” In other words, metaphysics is what happens before physics. It’s when philosophers try to think about the rules that existed prior to physical reality. Epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, is required for almost any discussion on metaphysics. Basically, epistemology is that branch of philosphy where we study what we can know. There is one view that there are concepts that exist outside of our reality (absolute rules), and that we can “know” some of these concepts through rational thought alone. There is the opposing view that it is ultimately pointless to ask about these concepts, because it is humanly impossible for us to “know” these concepts. That’s because these phenomena lie outside of human experience (what we cannot verify through our physical senses, we cannot know). What you’ve described about “humans should be able to go around killing each other without consequences” has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. Instead, you’re talking about Ethics. Or, to put it more directly, you’ve merely expressed one out of many possible ethical systems, based on your subjective opinion that life is essentially meaningless (which I strongly disagree). ====== So, back to square one. What you’ve been wanting to discuss all along is really about Ethics, not Metaphysics. You’re looking for a way to think about “meaning” in life. And you’ve got yourself horribly confused in the process. As I’ve suggested earlier, read more. As someone else has already commented, you’re chasing shadows. You’re clearly someone who is interested in such matters of philosophy, but you’ll get nowhere by thinking in isolation — other thinkers have explored the same issues you’re thinking about, and they’ve covered the ground in far greater detail than I can possibly explain. You’ll make a lot more progress by doing further research on your own. Good luck. I think you have potential, but you need to work at it. No one else can help clear up your thoughts for you. |
||||
2008-01-15, 23:34 | Link #32 |
Junior Member
|
Uh.. your references are almost irrelevant to me, since I have never formally approached philosophy. If you feel everything I've said is a syncratic product of everything you've learned, you're mistken ^_^' I'll definitely look into it, even though this understanding is not my struggle to understand who I am but rather interest for more knowledge, it has countless benefits besides the ones you've pointed out x)
I suppose I'm content with the rest, but could you please explain the 'essence' of a 'life' and it's 'value' as you understand it? I originally thought of classifying it as epistemology myself but metaphysics seemed more plausible, an error in judgement I guess. |
2008-01-15, 23:51 | Link #33 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
I do suggest you try my references. You'll be surprised to find that you're ideas aren't actually very original. (Heck, none of us on Earth are truly that original -- if we can think of something, chances are, somebody else has already thought of it before, and quite possibly wrote about it far more eloquently than I can.) Quote:
"Life" is probably even harder to define. You have religious, medical or philosophical definitions to choose and adapt from. But one thing is for sure, "life" is not just the "absence of death", as you might have put it. To say that would almost be like saying a coin is defined by its two sides, heads and tails. Well sure, every coin has two sides, but I suppose you can see from this analogy that this explanation alone does not define a coin. In the same way, "life" and "death" are simply two sides of an "existence". One does not define the other. Within the context of this thread, I suppose I can describe "life" simply as the ability to "have experience". You don't have to be consciously aware of the experience -- as far as we know, only humans are self-aware, but that doesn't make animals or plants less "alive" than we are. It follows that the collection of "experiences" is what gives life value. Every experience, however trivial, adds value to life, not least because every life approaches "existence" from a perspective that is uniquely its own. Your relationships with other people are a subset of these "experiences". You also have your memories, your own thoughts, your biological needs, and your sensory perceptions. Together, these are all a part of what makes you a unique individual. Which is why, from a narrow point of view, it would be morally wrong to take a life. Because every life is a unique instance that may never occur again. It has inherent value of its own. But, when it comes to ethical systems, we realise that there are endless exceptions to that moral proposition, "Thou shalt not kill." That is what makes moral philosophy interesting (or frustrating) to study. Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2008-01-16 at 01:22. Reason: Extended to include my explanations of "life" and "value". |
||
2008-01-16, 02:40 | Link #34 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Value is subjective. Is a man like Hitler considered "valuable"? He certainly was influential. Perhaps Einstein? What about suicide bombers? Nuns? What about your neighbor? His friends? To quote one of my favorite anime: No matter where you are, everyone is connected. To presume you have affect on others is ignoring their effect on you. One influences the other. Someone gets a flat tire. Creates a traffic jam. People stuck waiting get angry. Someone has a fit of road rage. Cuts someone off by speeding around other cars. The person he cuts off swerves. Hits the guardrail. His car is damaged. He files a report with the police. The police arrest the guy who had road rage. Man who has road rage has to go to anger management and pays a large fine. See where I'm going with this? It's fate. You, personally, have free will to decide. But everything about the universe, the system you live in, ultimately influences everything you do. So you go left instead of right, events will just play out accordingly. Because you cannot see the future, you cannot understand the events leading to your decision until after you have made it. So when it comes to value, again it's not up to you to decide your relevance to the world. How that value is measured ultimately comes down to personal belief. To some it holds none. To others it's more precious than anything else in the universe. Simply by existing, you influence the events of everything else. Those events shape you and others, making things as they are now. To tug on the strings of that tapestry would cause the whole thing to unravel. And yes, it is a fun thread. It's interesting to see others thoughts on this kind of thing.
__________________
|
|
2008-01-16, 12:33 | Link #35 | |
An Intellectual Idiot
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Internet, ranging from the World of Warcraft------Deviantart----and much more!..My mostly WoW
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Hmmm..I see what you are saying. See, my belifs in all this completley contridict themselfs....I think this is because it allows me to think more on the subject rather then pass by it. I don't like the thought of there being fate because that says that I have no control over my life what so ever, so how I end up is because it was planed, not because I made it to be that way..but then I do not believe in coincidences....Useing your example "The flat tire." My mind makes me think that it could of just became flat at random, but then my mind then thinks "Why did it go flat?" Then I start to think that it didn't just randomply go flat, something had to make it happen....Which makes me think back in a turn of events that could have happend and why it happend, going towards you theory on how people are all connected. This then goes towards the thought of "Fate." It's just confusing me...I've been taught that I can make my life how I want it to be, and that "Fate" doesn't exsist, but then you read things like this, and understand more and more, and it's just going against what you were taught, which is why I have a problem understanding...Ok..not understanding...More like accepting...My mind process everything and thinks about it..and even when I feel there is no way to get around it, I always keep thinking of a way because I feel that it's not true....So "Fate" itself is not confusing, it's because of how I was taught and the fact my mind contridicts itself is what makes it confusing.... (I would like to know how old everyone in this tread is..I mean, most of the kids in my school would probably have no idea what we are talking about....So to see kids my age talking about this would be a step out of the stupidity and ignorince in my school ) |
|
2008-01-16, 15:35 | Link #36 | |
Junior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-01-16, 16:03 | Link #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
I think it's great that you're starving for intellectual discourse. Your reasoning isn't incompetent as much as it is unclear. Being able to build, test and express your case clearly is an intellectual asset. It takes time to hone in on that precision. You'll also find that most people of ALL age groups do not care much about these intellectual things, but that's a separate issue from possessing an elitist attitude about it. You have to be careful about it. Lots of things to work though, I think you can definitely consider pursuing Psychology or Philosophy, and a sub-discipline within those that has a strong bent towards the social sciences. Just be aware that pursuing intellectual interests can severely diminish your future job prospects.. as it did mine when I gave up on a very promising start in Computer Science ; ) |
|
2008-01-16, 16:48 | Link #38 |
Junior Member
|
Thank you for your sincere concerns : ) Phisolosphy is recreation as far as I'm concerned. My real 'strenghts' would be human biology and physics. And I'll (probably) pursue a career in Medicine. But as long as you enjoy what you do, I don't see it as much of a loss. Thanks for the encouragement and valuable advice x)
What ever got me interested in philosophy was to lay basics for any fiction/non-fiction writing I ever do, rather than the conventional shallow themes. A little metaphoria and philosophy really makes reading meaningful, and all I learn here will eventually be implemented to lay the framework of an (hopefully) intricate plot-line ^__^ |
2008-01-16, 19:10 | Link #39 | |
An Intellectual Idiot
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Internet, ranging from the World of Warcraft------Deviantart----and much more!..My mostly WoW
Age: 32
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-01-16, 21:23 | Link #40 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
If it's writing you intend to do, here's further advice. People respect intelligence, but they admire beauty. While they may praise clever people, they don't often find them very likeable. There are many kinds of writing, but the most successful novels, poems, essays, biographies, autobiographies, etc, are not the ones that beat you over the head bragging about the "wisdom" they contain. The most successful ones are those which tell stories that remind us what it means to be human. Good luck. |
||
Tags |
free will, philosophy |
|
|