Philosophy

[Millane]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, I keep trying to start a thread called "why you believe what you believe" where I wanted to explain this in detail, but I keep getting sidetracked - and I have to get off the Moot in 5 mintues and can't get back on till prob. Tuesday , but I'll give it a quick whirl ...

hahaha interesting thread idea, please do start it, and thanks for the response (you can type pretty well in a short space of time )

From what I observe and read, people all over the world are "pious", or "moral", in the most basic sense of people everywhere acknowledge that there is a "right" and a "wrong". Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, whatever - people are MORAL beings. They look at a behavior and make a judgement about whether it is right or wrong (or sometimes just neutral, such as reading a book).

i agree with this part of your post, i think it is natural for ALL humans to pass judgement, and right and wrong make this very conveniant...

And what's really quite amazing is the astounding similarity of what is considered right and wrong. Take killing people, for example. Now people might disagree as to what type of killing is right and what type of killing is wrong - but ALL people, from what we read and observe, think that some level of killing is wrong - usually killing solely for selfish personal gain.

this is leaning towards moral absolutism which id also like to talk about but ill leave it for now. Well i disagree that ALL people think that killing for selfish personal gain is wrong. Charles Manson talked about how although he didnt gain enjoyment from killing, he would have no objections to killing if something was in his way, would you agree that he does not find killing for selfish personal gain wrong, it would be like me pushing a log out of my way, there is nothing enjoyable about it but i do it, i dont pass judgement (as in right or wrong) at all. Now to me it sounds like your proof of God as the source of Morality lies on the foundation of humans ALL having a similar opinion on a moral issue (such as this or your lying examples) and as i think that Manson is an exception to your rule, so i also think that this undermines your reason for God being the source of morality...
Your christian and atheism paragraphs seem to be an explanation of the source of all morality, and while i may not necassarily believe in this counterposition i think that i could plausably say that Instinct could easily tear down your arguments, who is to say that morality isnt the by-product of some physico-chemical process in our bodies, and that the similar structure of our bodies explains the similarities in our views on morality...
i will throw another Philosopher's opinion in who would also counteract your "source of morality". In a discussion between Socrates and Callicles (i forget the book sorry), Callicles prescribes a naturalistic view of Morality, simply that we should observe what happens in nature to find out how we should act (very heavily into the opinion Might is Right), now we all know that morality isnt simply as animals live because our morals are so different, these morals Callicles calls Conventional Morality, and what is the source of conventional morality? he explains that conventional morality was created by the weak members of society to suppress the stronger members of society...

. If you tell me "don't murder my friend, it's wrong!" I could easily answer "I don't care what you think is wrong, I disagree, and I want to murder your friend!" And what's more, neither one of us should feel bad about it - after all, why should we? My opinion is just as important (or unimportant) as yours.

yes but couldnt the murderer to be, simply threaten the friend with being killed next, do you think neither could persuade the other one to accept his morals?

[Hemel]

that conventional morality was created by the weak members of society to suppress the stronger members of society...

Heh! My opinion (who am I to debate with great philoophers? ) is that it's the other way round. Might is Right couched in emotional and moral terms ...

IR:
question really should be why are we also mean to each other so often if god carefully injects these morals into each of us that are supposed to urge us toward the straight and narrow.

And I think a Christian answer to that would be that Satan is wow cunning ... and that this meanness shows just how much he's active also in the world today .... including in arguments that try to dismiss God just because we do bad things. S'pose my opinion if I took a Christian perspective (Rian will correct me if I've got this wrong) would be that free will, and especially when we actively use that to choose for good things, glorifies God even more. 'Sides, what price someone who chooses the good path just because she or he can't do anything else? 'Clockwork Orange' anyone?

Hemel-who-really-must-read-the-whole-thread-sometime

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Hemel
And I think a Christian answer to that would be that Satan is wow cunning ... and that this meanness shows just how much he's active also in the world today .... including in arguments that try to dismiss God just because we do bad things.

and this is of course eminently predictable and perfectly circular logic to your cause.

[Rían]

(visiting in-laws are out shopping - time to Moot for a few minutes!)

Originally posted by Millane
(you can type pretty well in a short space of time )

I type like the wind! ha HA! ha HA!
(about 90 words per minute)

Now to me it sounds like your proof of God as the source of Morality lies on the foundation of humans ALL having a similar opinion on a moral issue (such as this or your lying examples) and as i think that Manson is an exception to your rule, so i also think that this undermines your reason for God being the source of morality...

Actually I think Manson is still a good indicator of this, because he is considered very abnormal, which indicates that there is a normal standard around. Do you see what I mean? And the people considered to be normal think his acts are repugnant. So no, I don't think it necessary has to be EVERY single person - there are some very sick people out there.

And also, a big point is that I bet Manson didn't start out that way from birth. In the Bible it talks about how when people repeatedly harden their heart by ignoring their conscience and choosing to do what they know is wrong, it gets to a point where the heart is nonresponsive to moral promptings. It's a very dangerous thing to keep doing wrong and think it doesn't hurt you ....


More later ... gtg again - thoughts?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
The question really should be why are we also mean to each other so often if god carefully injects these morals into each of us that are supposed to urge us toward the straight and narrow.

Another place where the Bible is spot-on about how it says people act:

from Romans chpt. 8 in the Bible, written by the apostle Paul, usually quite a good guy but also still a sinner
... for I am not practising what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good.

See, there's this perfect picture of how people operate again, described in the Bible - how we WANT to follow the promptings of our conscience, but very often blow it. I still get cranky with my kids sometimes, even tho I don't WANT to when I'm actually DOING it. And the very fact that I feel bad about it means that I KNOW it's wrong, as the Bible says.

Our conscience urges us, as you said, to do right, but too often we choose to do wrong - I think that anyone that is honest would admit that. And tho there are, as you said, "countless examples of humans being horrible and cruel to each other. killing without remorse. brutilizing and raping and destroying and torturing" - yet I claim that they know it's wrong, or at the very least know that they would not like it to happen to someone they love, BECAUSE they know it's wrong. There are a few cases like Manson, but VERY few, IMO, and even Manson prob. wouldn't like what HE did to happen to someone he cared about. But he might be SO far hardened at this point that there's no one he cares about but himself.

No time now for the rest of your post, but that's NOT how I would answer it - I don't think free will proves the existence of God...

[Hemel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and this is of course eminently predictable and perfectly circular logic to your cause.

Why? And btw, what do you think my cause is? (Serious question )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Hemel
Why? And btw, what do you think my cause is? (Serious question )

why what? i was responding to your comments explaining people do bad things because of satans urgings. specifically that satan gets us to dismiss god because we do bad things. thats christian circular logic in a nut shell. seamless. well designed to have no point at which you can refute anything because it uses its own reasoning as its own proof. very pretty logic. but faulty.

your cause? well im assuming that was your own personal opinion and you werent playing the devils advocate there (excuse the pun).

[Hemel]

Bother I haven't a lot of time this morning, but very quickly ....

You've raised an interesting philosophical point actually - whether any argument will ultimately, if we take the greater perspective (from the God's eye view even ), end up as being circular.

And, come to think of it, whether that is necessarily a bad thing .... it looks to me, for example, that a Christian perspective as I have outlined does give a valid answer for that particular discourse ... (random thought here ... it is quite neatly self-contained ... is this what you mean by circular? But that is the nature of any discourse, that from within it it will make sense ... ) And most certainly, using the test that you gave - it does play out in the observable data perfectly.

A very quick look at your argument. Is that not circular or a particular discourse? Because it seems to me that the answer will always be what it has benefitted us to do. We behave well because it benefits us, we behave badly because it benefits us - heh, we can even do nothing because it benefits us!

The difference between the the two, I suppose, is that one accesses something outside the human, the other is centred in the human. But I'd suggest that both are quite logical arguments given basic premises

your cause? well im assuming that was your own personal opinion and you werent playing the devils advocate there (excuse the pun).

Actually, I'm of the opinion that truly to try to understand issues means trying also to understand discourses/opinions/views that don't necessarily coincide with one's own. And then attempting to apply them to whatever the situation is.

Must go - most appropriately, as we're considering being mean and horrible, I have a whole day on battle weaponry to get through ....

[Millane]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Actually I think Manson is still a good indicator of this, because he is considered very abnormal, which indicates that there is a normal standard around. Do you see what I mean? And the people considered to be normal think his acts are repugnant. So no, I don't think it necessary has to be EVERY single person - there are some very sick people out there.

i think abnormal and normal arent good words to use in a debate about morality, while i do understand what you are saying would you agree that it is contentious to use those words as they apply to whos saying them. Maybe minority and majority would be better. People are only considered normal by those who agree with them. Surely normal morality shouldnt contradict itself?
As we're in the philosophy thread i will use Socrates as an example, back in his time, it was considered "normal" for older men to have relations with younger boys, breaking "normal" morality of paedophilia (aswell as homosexuality if you want).

And also, a big point is that I bet Manson didn't start out that way from birth. In the Bible it talks about how when people repeatedly harden their heart by ignoring their conscience and choosing to do what they know is wrong, it gets to a point where the heart is nonresponsive to moral promptings. It's a very dangerous thing to keep doing wrong and think it doesn't hurt you ....

i dont think that we hold morals when we are born, and i dont think they come from the heart (the soul?) i believe they come from our rational capabilities, and it may even be that morality derives from our selfish nature (as Murdoch explains it) and that we can only feel comfortable by convincing ourselves that we are moral for the good of the whole not the individual.

[Stephen]

Rian. I've read all of Nietzsche's philosophical work and i can think of a couple specific thoughts of his that stay with me.

"Pity is the virtue of prostitutes"

A fairly venomous accusation since most feel pity at times i assume. What Fred says is that pity is nothing more than a weak persons only prospect at power. For if one gives pity and another accepts the pity the acceptor comes under the givers power. He goes on to roll that into a fairly heated critique of the RC church since pity is very apparent in Jesus's teachings. Do i agree with this quote?... sometimes.

"The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity"

If one takes this point of view the hitlers of history are the greatest men because they are the ones that push us to the greatest achievement.

[Millane]

Originally posted by Stephen
Rian. I've read all of Nietzsche's philosophical work and i can think of a couple specific thoughts of his that stay with me.

thats great, i have only read parts from the Gay Science...

"Pity is the virtue of prostitutes"

A fairly venomous accusation since most feel pity at times i assume. What Fred says is that pity is nothing more than a weak persons only prospect at power. For if one gives pity and another accepts the pity the acceptor comes under the givers power. He goes on to roll that into a fairly heated critique of the RC church since pity is very apparent in Jesus's teachings. Do i agree with this quote?... sometimes.

do you think this quote also reflects his contempt for women, or merely his individualistic approach to philosophy?, personally while i like some of Nietzsche's thoughts and while some have a great deal going for them, i dont really think it is practical for a modern society to disregard all pity and compassion, because while i agree that it certainly advances the individual it works against humans as a collective. i would also like to see Nietzsche living with people who disregarded pity and left him to look after himself, just to observe if any of his thoughts changed...

"The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity"

If one takes this point of view the hitlers of history are the greatest men because they are the ones that push us to the greatest achievement.

again i think at the cost of humanity. I would also point out that while iagree with this statement as it is written, i dont think humanity has advanced for the better, advancing humanity at the cost of humanity seems to me to be worse than better

[Stephen]

"God is dead"~fn

Hi Millane. When i started reading Fred i was filled with awe and disgust simultaneously. His apparent disregard of female quality is definitely not shared by myself. I personally prefer a more chivalrous approach but thats just me. It's excellent that you are starting with the gay science because it's low on the cynicism and high on the inspiration. I started with the antichrist and i confess it was quite a shock to this lad with roots in Roman Catholicism. I'd reccomend Also sprach Zarathrustra next... or The case of wagner/birth of tragedy. And yes, i think his use of the word "prostitutes" is very indicative of his mindset toward women. He could have just sa easily used some masculine equivalent right?

[Insidious Rex]

Ok my apologies ahead of time to all my republican friends but I found this too funny to pass up. And they mention quite a few philosophers so…

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true.

Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life She spent that night at her mother's. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as
college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.

She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors... They didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me
that night.

As I sank to the ground, clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting.

At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I watch a lot more TV now. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.

Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today, I registered to vote Republican.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Millane
.... advancing humanity at the cost of humanity seems to me to be worse than better

I agree.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Ok my apologies ahead of time to all my republican friends but I found this too funny to pass up. And they mention quite a few philosophers so…

Funny!

And with apologies to my liberal friends, I'll pass on something that I heard about talk radio and why there's so many conservative shows and so few liberal. The guy that said this pointed out that fact, and then said that once a liberal guy starts a radio show he's actually forced to think thru and try to defend his positions, then sees it's impossible because they don't make any sense, and then he becomes a conservative!

[Bombadillo]

*bump* Tada! The thread that launched me into my current location. (EDIT: "Deep Thought")

Since last year we've gotten a lot of new mooters, including a few intersting ones , and a couple have left apparently , plus people have changed. There are new things to be said.

Personally, I still hold the same beliefs that I talked about here (slight differences but let's not go too deep immediately), but have thought of a way to summarize them: beauty is appreciation.

Anyone else want to post their thoughts? I suppose it's hard to begin, but everything is relevant to philosophy, so say anything at all. I don't want this thread to die again.

How was this allowed to sink to the bottom anyway? (That's a rhetorical question. Or is it? ) It's got me reminiscing now. I lost track of some mooters. Now I miss GM and Sminty; and Janny, I can't believe how long I thought you had become inactive, when really the two of us were online just as often as the other, never in same thread at the same time. I even forgot that we're nearly the same age. That's incredible! You're alive!

[Lotesse]

I'm so glad you bumped this thread, Bombadillo - you know, I am positive I searched around for a philosophy thread a couple times, once when I first joined the moot and another time, not too long ago, but for some reason I don't recall having found anything at all. I'm here! Although I've been mooting off and on literally all day long, so I'm kind of drained, but I'll definitely help you revive this thread, for SURE, as long as it does NOT turn into another friggin' theology thread, know what I mean?

EDIT: psychic abilities??? you're freakin' me out man, what a trip...

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

EDIT: psychic abilities??? you're freakin' me out man, what a trip...

(What's she talking about?)


You must have noticed this just seconds after I bumped it. Right after I posted, I closed out of a couple windows, then checked "who's online" and you were already replying. I thought you must have seen me in "who's online" reading this thread, but since I'm invisible, you thought it was a guest, and you decided to bump the thread. I thought, wow it would freak her out if we bumped the same year-old thread in a couple of cross-posts, and I predicted her post coming.

Shucks. Aw, man, that would've been awesome.

That's wierd that it didn't show up in your search. Maybe our search tool only displays what's recent. I totally forgot about this, and fiddling with my control panel, found out I subscribed to it a long time ago.

EDIT: Yeah, I'm tired too. I'm mountain biking all day tomorrow, and if I don't sleep soon, I'll surely die on the mountain. See y'all Monday!

[Lotesse]

I'm glad you did, anyway. You'll see me in this thread now more often than not - at this particular moment, however, I'm even yawning I'm so tired. I did an awful lot of posting today, mainly in my RPG (the Nazguls etcetera RPG) and now I'm even typing slow.

p.s. the meaning of life is that life has no meaning - paraphrasing Joseph Cambell...

[Lief Erikson]

How is meaninglessness meaningful?