especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic.
Therefor Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock. — stoicHoneyBadger
So, at least in the short term, the side that is vigilant about its believes would win, not the one that is factually correct. — stoicHoneyBadger
Therefor people are usually driven by instincts - a pattern of behavior, which formed during billions of years of evolution, to which logic is subservient. — stoicHoneyBadger
Nature favors the winners — stoicHoneyBadger
Instincts say - I want to procreate. Logic follows - ok, we would need a mate for that, let's see where we could find one and how could we attract her. — stoicHoneyBadger
Let us look at the first principals — stoicHoneyBadger
since none of those questions can be really answered in a definite manner — stoicHoneyBadger
and each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct, which is an evolutionary feature, not a bug! — stoicHoneyBadger
Sure. Ask 10 women, whom would they would like to mate with, a winner or a looser? Pretty much that's all nature cares about.Does it?
But of course they cannot all be right,
Moral framework is supposed to bind & blind people, not be factually accurate. — stoicHoneyBadger
For example, 100 vigilant Muslims who act in unison would easily take over, probably, 10.000 atheists, who are caught in analysis-paralysis and are unable to act as a group. — stoicHoneyBadger
Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal? — Tzeentch
The question is, what is each of us to take or use to build our moral framework.
A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all.
So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.
The way I do it, at first I pick what kind of life I want to live and then construct a moral framework that supports it. At least I really can't think of any other criteria. — stoicHoneyBadger
t completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :) — stoicHoneyBadger
Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. — stoicHoneyBadger
On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway? — stoicHoneyBadger
As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.
Logic can be very useful for solving issues, where all major parameters are known, yet becomes less and less efficient, once some parameters are unknown. — stoicHoneyBadger
it seems to be subservient to instincts, emotions or the so-called first principals - i.e. some axioms taken as a priory true. — stoicHoneyBadger
Or instincts say - I am hungry! Logic replies - roger that, let me find some food for you — stoicHoneyBadger
He actually was corrupting the youth by making them logically question their instincts, driving them into analysis-paralysis. — stoicHoneyBadger
each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct — stoicHoneyBadger
Dear God first time I see someone is accused for corrupting others with too much... Logic!! What a bastard Socrates was, indeed!!
I really can't understand why so many people here are against Logic!
As long as I am here to this forum that's what I found most shocking and it was the biggest surprise to me!
What the fuck Logic has done to you people of Philosophy Forum and you attack to it so badly?? Is it a sign of ages? Maybe, cause societies seem to underestimate Logic more and more!
The worst that someone can accuse Logic for, is that can't offer solution to everything!! OK. So?? Where and when it is able to offer solutions is the best way to lead you directly to Truth. Which other "method" has better results if not Logic then??
Not all instincts are good for us.If I have the instinct to fuck a woman I see at the market should I go and rape her as to obey my instinct?
Socratic dialogues usually end with "see, it just proves we don't know anything. have a good night.", — stoicHoneyBadger
In the course of recounting his conversations with others, Socrates says something enigmatic: “About myself I knew that I know nothing” (22d; cf. Fine 2008). The context of the dialogue allows us to read this pronouncement as unproblematical. Socrates knows that he does not know about important things. Interpreted in this manner, Socrates does not appear to be a skeptic in the sense that he would profess to know nothing. Even though some readers (ancient and modern) found such an extreme statement in the Apology, a more plausible reading suggests that Socrates advocates the importance of critically examining one’s own and others’ views on important matters, precisely because one does not know about them (Vogt 2012a, ch. 1). Such examination is the only way to find out.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.