Philosophy

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Funny, you say that like you know what the truth is? you know, absolutely.

I should have said that absolutes, in terms of human concepts, are illusionary.

Defining what are essentially human concepts as illusionary is admitting that everyone, including myself, don't know what the truth is. Or, if there even are truths, for that matter.

While one can argue the existance/non-existance of matter (i.e. a TV), it's quite a different matter where concepts are concerned.

A TV probably exists whether or not there is a human in the universe to observe it. So, while it's appearance is relative to the observer (some might find it intriguing, while others dislike them), it's probably safe to assume that the TV has some characteristics that are independent of the observer, and maybe even "absolute" in some way.

Concepts (good, evil, love, hate) are a whole 'nother ballgame. They don't exist without the observer present to define them. This is why they are illusionary. Though they are very powerful illusions.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

A TV probably exists whether or not there is a human in the universe to observe it. So, while it's appearance is relative to the observer (some might find it intriguing, while others dislike them), it's probably safe to assume that the TV has some characteristics that are independent of the observer, and maybe even "absolute" in some way.

Which characteristics does a TV have that exist independent of the observer? Is it 'square'? Is it 'small'? Is it 'ingenious'? Is it "harmoniously designed'? How do you define that? Does its existence depend on time, or space, or does it exist infinitely? Without a standard of some kind, how can it exist? If there was an observer, how would you define it such that the observer and the TV were different things?

Concepts (good, evil, love, hate) are a whole 'nother ballgame. They don't exist without the observer present to define them. This is why they are illusionary. Though they are very powerful illusions.

*shakes head* There is nothing more real in the universe than love. There is nothing more permanent. If you live in a world where TV's are more real than that, it's a shallow kind of place.

[Mari]

I've always been taught that there is good on the one hand and evil on the other. There is no definition of either one, which is kind of silly if they are both on opposite sides, because to have opposite sides, you'd expect to have a nice line and a balance somewhere.
It keeps surprising me how many people keep telling me there are these opposites without being able to tell me about the line.

Personally I believe in (I think it was Aristoteles, but I might be very wrong... I keep mixing them up) there not being pure evil, but only missteps on the path to the right/good/proper/whatever. It is usually easier to see the evil in good things (like for example, the result was good, but the intention was bad, or if it had gone this way it would have been better) than it is to see the good things in something we perceive to be evil. Sometimes, finding the good in things requires effort and somehow some people seem unwilling to make that effort (these days).

But talking about philosophy, how do you feel about Utalitarianism? When we treated the subject in high school, a lot of my class mates took it to mean that you could do whatever you want and that you could "use" people and things for you own personal happiness. In my view, you can't be happy unless the people you care about are more or less happy, so that would lead to you, trying your best to make them happy. Based on this, on emight expect your nearest and dearest to feel the same about their nearest and dearest, so it would become an overlapping circle of people trying to make others happy because they want to be happy. Egoism with a happy ending

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This is the allegory of the cave thingy, right? That was about the only thing I learned in Philosophy class that I could understand.

Basically, the idea that there are self-subsistent archetypes of things such as chair, dog, justice, beauty, which things only can be called such or are such by virtue of their participation in the Form of Chair, the Form of Dog, the Form of the Just, the Form of the Beautiful, etc.

Originally Posted by Mari

Personally I believe in (I think it was Aristoteles, but I might be very wrong... I keep mixing them up) there not being pure evil, but only missteps on the path to the right/good/proper/whatever.

The tradition Aristotelian/Thomistic idea of evil is that it is a privation, a lacking of a good where there should be one. Is that what you mean?

[The Gaffer]

Nice post, Mari.

Originally Posted by Mari

But talking about philosophy, how do you feel about Utalitarianism? When we treated the subject in high school, a lot of my class mates took it to mean that you could do whatever you want and that you could "use" people and things for you own personal happiness. In my view, you can't be happy unless the people you care about are more or less happy, so that would lead to you, trying your best to make them happy. Based on this, on emight expect your nearest and dearest to feel the same about their nearest and dearest, so it would become an overlapping circle of people trying to make others happy because they want to be happy. Egoism with a happy ending

It's a long time since I did this (20+ years!) but IIRC this is a misinterpretation of utilitarianism.

The key concept is "utility", a measure of how much good there is in a particular situation to a particular person. So what a utilitarian would be concerned with would be maximising the utility for the maximum number of people in the world.

For example, let's say a situation of perfect health and happiness is a utility of 100, and let's say being dead is zero. I could kill everyone in the world, nick all their stuff and be 100 on the scale, but there are billions of zeros in there so it would be of overall low utility. It would be better to have everyone alive but miserable.

This kind of approach is actually used in health economics, to work out the the costs and benefits of a particular intervention. For example, hip replacements don't save anyone's life, but they greatly increase the utility attached to a person's life, because they can walk without pain! Being alive and in severe pain might well have a utility close to zero; the benefit is almost as much as if you'd saved their life.

Both a strength and weakness of utilitarianism would be that you don't take into account how one person's happiness matters more to you than another's. As you point out, in reality, that is probably a major factor in why we function as a collectively (im)moral species. One might say that utilitarianism is both an improvement on reality (in that everyone's happiness gets the same weight) and an unrealistic model of it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Which characteristics does a TV have that exist independent of the observer? Is it 'square'? Is it 'small'? Is it 'ingenious'? Is it "harmoniously designed'? How do you define that? Does its existence depend on time, or space, or does it exist infinitely? Without a standard of some kind, how can it exist? If there was an observer, how would you define it such that the observer and the TV were different things?

Most of the descriptions you use would be based on the observer. A particular collection of atoms is probably about as objective as we can get. As far as distinition goes, that doesn't really matter without an observer. But, at a certain level, a TV and a living being are not particularly different. At our level, they are very different.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

*shakes head* There is nothing more real in the universe than love. There is nothing more permanent. If you live in a world where TV's are more real than that, it's a shallow kind of place.

We do live in a world where physical things are more real than the conceptual, but that's why something like love means a lot to me. Not because it is something that has always existed, like a particular collection of atoms. Not because it is something that comes from some godlike supreme being. But because it is something, possibly unique to humans, that we have created together.

The very dependence that the feeling of love has on my existence, your existence, and everyone else's, is what gives it such beauty. Basically, the very idea that it is not permanent, but depends upon our fostering to exist.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mari

In my view, you can't be happy unless the people you care about are more or less happy, so that would lead to you, trying your best to make them happy.

I couldn't agree more!

The tough part is convincing everyone that this is true.

[inked]

SACAA, the only absolute that BJ acknowledges is that his perception of reality is the way it is. I honour your valiant attempt to reason with him. May the battle do you good. Gathering mercury in a sieve, perhaps, but there is that chance that you will benefit. BJ refuses. Experentia docet.

Noble Elf Lord, you see, I hope, on the other threads you have no doubt searched that BJ knows only one absolute ... that stated above. But do try to reason with him, it builds a recognition of logical errors. That is, of course, of no concern to BJ, since there are "no absolutes" except his.

[Lotesse]

phew, jesus Inked, take it easy on Brownjenkins already, willya? Your sarcasm comes across as mean-spirited. Do you mind? It bothers me to keep seeing him snarked by you. Why do you do that, Inked? So what if he believes in absolutes, or whatever, so? Why encourage snide jeering teasing of the man? It only makes you look shallow-spirited, sir. Very sad.

[Earniel]

Do I need to remind people that personal attacks aren't allowed on the Entmoot? You all should know this by now. No more or I'll break out my editing tool.

[brownjenkins]

No worries!

An attack is only personal if you let it be. And an attack that has no validity does not bother me.

I guess that it would be fair to argue that my perception of reality is absolute, to me. But I also accept the fact that Inked's perception is absolute to him, and Sis's to her, etc.

Which is another way of saying that everything is relative.

The real problem may be that the human-created concept of "absoluteness", applied to anything other than individual points of view, simply doesn't exist.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Most of the descriptions you use would be based on the observer. A particular collection of atoms is probably about as objective as we can get. As far as distinition goes, that doesn't really matter without an observer. But, at a certain level, a TV and a living being are not particularly different. At our level, they are very different.

I disagree. I have seen people that were alive become dead. Their atoms have not changed, but the difference is enormous, and visible, even to my limited perceptions. If you're going to insist on an observable reality, you can't dismiss observation, as such. But you don't, actually, because you say there is "TVness" that has nothing to do with size, etc. That's how the TV differs from a spaniel, or your children. They are all atoms.

We do live in a world where physical things are more real than the conceptual,

No, actually, WE don't. You live in a world where you have (arbitrarily, I guess) assigned such values. I'd have slit my wrists long ago, if that's what I believed. I work in the hopes that a fuller view of actual reality may someday be mine, and, on good days, I get a better peep. I don't know how you'd even recognise a 'good day' if that wasn't your benchmark. Once you eliminate conceptual things, what do you have left except the seven deadly sins?

but that's why something like love means a lot to me. Not because it is something that has always existed, like a particular collection of atoms. Not because it is something that comes from some godlike supreme being. But because it is something, possibly unique to humans, that we have created together.

The very dependence that the feeling of love has on my existence, your existence, and everyone else's, is what gives it such beauty. Basically, the very idea that it is not permanent, but depends upon our fostering to exist.

When I try to understand this, I get sad. I am not so impressed with myself that I prefer my creations to all others. I may enjoy painting, but I enjoy Chagall's painting in a different way. I am a little painter, and he is a big one, but we are both less than the totality of the urge to communicate and touch beauty in that way. Likewise, I am not so impressed with mankind, that I prefer our creations to all others. And I believe that every cat and cow has the same potential for love and joy that humans do. How would they have that, if love is unique to humans, and something which is temporary and must be made? I live with a world where no smile is truly lost, no afternoon building sandcastles ever fades, because it is connected indissoluably to the greater reality. I don't need the pride of ownership to validate the love I feel for my family and friends, and I never have to worry that when something happens to me, that love will be lessened.

I really can't imagine how difficult it would be, to see it so differently. But I see it this way because it accords with the evidence of my senses, not because it denies it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I disagree. I have seen people that were alive become dead. Their atoms have not changed, but the difference is enormous, and visible, even to my limited perceptions.

Actually, when someone dies it is a physical change. I don't know enough about physics to tell you the difference atomically between someone who is living and someone who is not, but I'd guess that there is one.

On the rest, love isn't my creation, it's our creation.

I suppose you believe that love is created by something else (i.e. god), and we are merely vessels for it?

At the heart, my beliefs, and joy in them, don't depend on everything being eternal. I'm more than happy with their temporary nature. To me, that makes them all the more precious and worth holding on to.

But, in the end, whatever works for the individual is fine. I'm happy in my beliefs, and certainly not slitting my wrists, and you're happy in yours. And, if both ways work, all is good.

[inked]

Lotesse, Earniel, BJ, et alia,

I certainly intended no personal attack on BJ, merely the elucidation of his constantly absolute statement about relativity of standards,

which I might note, he promptly affirmed.

I note that he did not perceive it as a personal attack.

Is it attacking someone to state their entrenched position and refer others to their posted views?

Battling BJ is good training. That was a compliment. The evermorphing problem of no absolutes is certainly present in BJ's argumentation.

BJ and I even occasionally agree, but only on Blue Moons in alternately-treated leap years evenly divisible by four with no remainder and no 29 February. See the "Dumbledore is Gay" thread.


Lotesse, I'm the one who believes in absolutes. BJ believes in absolute relativity of standards. I wasn't being snarky but creatively expressive. However, I do apologize to you for having offended your sensibilities by appearing to have attacked BJ personally.

[The Telcontarion]

I know it can be confusing at times to try and define good vs evil. I have come to a very simple discerning tool myself; which is motivated by love and which is motivated by fear.

Greed, envy, jealousy, insecurity...etc, are all motivated by fear. These emotions lead to genocide, wars, fights, hate etc. A good example of the consequence is,

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

...I see this as a spiritual battle more so than a physical one. Just like Palantir, Ron Paul's policies are exactly what is needed, but the people (not just in america, this is a world desease) are degenerate, depraved, arrogant, pathetic, selfish, caluss, thus fearful: the wicked!!!

Though I believe the paradigm is shifting and the tide is turning, people are waking up to the machine, the lesson learned as a result of our folly cannot be fully appreciated/comprehended/understood before we face the consequences.

Alas!!!

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Matthew 24:22

That is simple and straight forward even if you don't give the bible any credit. Another thing about evil is that it is always associated with insecurity; the feeling of a great need to improve one self.

Good to me equals love. Which conversely is associated with total contentment with one self, it always starts with loving oneself; it is the only way you can know how to love anyone else. love is good, good is god.

If you are happy and in total contentment with everything, you will no fear for anything, you will be at peace; how could evil come from such a one. No fear no evil.

I will say also when you do evil you know it is evil. When you stab someone in the back because you are jealous of them, you know you did evil. When you praise someone because you want not to give the praise to the one who rightly deserves it, that is evil. Those who donot know evil when they do it are the worst kind of lier, they lie to themselves. Which sets a chain reaction in your psychology, which leads to fear and insecurity because in your subconscious you know the truth, and that will destroy you.

[Mari]

But doesn't that mean that everyone is to a greater or lesser extent evil? Everyone fears something, it's natural. You fear coming too near fire, because you are affraid it will hurt you. When I was affraid my friend would hurt my sisters feelings I pushed him away. Is wanting to protect my sister evil? My friend was hurt, but he got over it. My sister on the other hand is still talking about him and what he said to her. What I think I'm trying to say is that sometimes fear is healthy and natural and it can get to a point where you have to make choices out of fear something may happen.
I do agree with you though that a lot of our darker emotions and motivations are fueled by fear.

Then a completely different thing: what is love? What is pure love? If there is pure love, that means there must be unpure love. Is unpure love still good? Can love be twisted? Some people claim to kill out of love and I even heard the saying of "hating out of love". How is that connected to love?
The word love is sometimes used in such a loose way that one doesn't know the meaning of it anymore:
I love orange roses, especially those with lovely red or yellow edges. I love growing my own lovable cute little plants and allthough some of them die on me, I try to give them my utmost loving care.
too much love... ugh.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

At the heart, my beliefs, and joy in them, don't depend on everything being eternal. I'm more than happy with their temporary nature. To me, that makes them all the more precious and worth holding on to.

I don't understand why anyone would want to live forever, by immortal, have a forever afterlife, whatever anyway.
Isn't prospective death a great motivator to live a life worth living and assist others in living a life worth living?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Lotesse, I'm the one who believes in absolutes. BJ believes in absolute relativity of standards. I wasn't being snarky but creatively expressive. However, I do apologize to you for having offended your sensibilities by appearing to have attacked BJ personally.

Well, you were playing with words a bit to respresent my point of view in a way that you wanted it shown, as opposed to the way I was expressing it.

"Absolute relativity of standards" doesn't really fly as a description of what I've said because there are no standards and, if there were, they'd only absolute in terms of the individual.

So, my statements about relativity are not absolute at all in the way that you use the term (i.e. absolute throughout reality).

Take a less-controversial topic like ice cream. The idea that "ice cream tastes good" is a concept, not a physical thing.

From Inked's absolute point of view, if "ice cream tasting good" fell under it, ice cream tastes good because god made it taste good. And, anyone who claims that it does not taste good to them are simply disillusioned, or expressing a sin (of the dairy variety).

From my point of view, the individual determines what does and doesn't taste good. If I think ice cream tastes good, it's an absolute to me since I can't love it's taste and hate it's taste at the same time. But, I understand that another person may not agree, and that is perfectly fine.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Take a less-controversial topic like ice cream. The idea that "ice cream tastes good" is a concept, not a physical thing.

From Inked's absolute point of view, if "ice cream tasting good" fell under it, ice cream tastes good because god made it taste good. And, anyone who claims that it does not taste good to them are simply disillusioned, or expressing a sin (of the dairy variety).

From my point of view, the individual determines what does and doesn't taste good. If I think ice cream tastes good, it's an absolute to me since I can't love it's taste and hate it's taste at the same time. But, I understand that another person may not agree, and that is perfectly fine.

No, I can't speak for Inked, but this is not what I'm saying, at all.

First of all, "Ice cream tastes good" would just be an inaccurate way to say something. The same is true of Mari's "love" examples. The more accurate thing to say would be, as you suggest, "I like ice cream." That correctly identifies the locus of the adjective, because 'taste', while a characteristic of ice cream, is largely defined by the observer.

But "good", as in 'ice cream tastes good' is a measurement of sorts. Ice cream tastes good. It tastes better than old army socks, which taste bad. My point is that, in order to say "ice cream tastes good' instead of "ice cream tastes blue', or 'ice cream tastes Howard' we use a standard - 'goodness' which partakes of all "goodness". So, if listening to a fine symphony is 'good' and eating ice cream is 'good', they have something in common, and it isn't their butterfat content.

Swapping around the common and the ideal usages of 'good' in order to make sport of people who believe in God (which most who do capitalize) doesn't make this discussion easier to follow, imo.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

I certainly intended no personal attack on BJ

I know, I know you weren't tryna attack, I've known you for a few years here and I do know that you don't mean to outright attack people here, but what I do know about you is that your style is so, so sarcastic when you're debating someone that it comes across very loudly as belittling, and mean-spirited, even if that might not ever be your intent, to actually belittle or be mean. I'm just sayin'. But hey, lord knows I am no angel at ALL on the edgy post phenomenon, good grief! But me, I always get in trouble for "flaming" because I've got such a fiery, direct way of communicating my dislike of a post, I'm useless at double-edged sly sarcasm. anyway...

Originally Posted by Inked

I wasn't being snarky but creatively expressive.

That is SO AWESOME!! I have got to remember to try that explanation next time I get called out for being unnecessarily rough in my famously incendiary posts. It's creative expression!! Not snarkiness!!

Originally Posted by Inked

However, I do apologize to you for having offended your sensibilities by appearing to have attacked BJ personally.

Oh, please don't apologise to me! Anyway, you didn't offend my sensibilities, not at all. It's just that I've always considered Brownjenkins as a friend and a kind-hearted person on these boards, and well, it annoys one to keep having to witness kind-hearted people and/or one's friends being unnecessarily snarked at.

Therefore, I felt I had to say something, Inked, so you could be made aware that your super-sarcastic style of posting about/to your opponents around here so often just screams nastiness, even if you, as you say, don't ever actually intend to be nasty, supercilious, or deliberately unkind. It sounds like you do, you know? The way you snap your sarcasm out at people, me not least of all over the years, it sounds (or, reads) very much like you intend to belittle and mock. I mean, just so you know.