But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A word without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things). — Benj96
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate. — Bartricks
A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having free will to choose one's action at all times. Being omniscient means knowing what every future choice will be. Can't have both. — Real Gone Cat
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. — Bartricks
Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space. — Vera Mont
I don't understand that question — Bartricks
What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". — Benj96
Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world. — Bartricks
You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying — Bartricks
Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. — Bartricks
Except for the times when a system stops working and is overthrown from within, or suffers a major collapse and disintegrates or is overwhelmed by an outside force. People born into the period of upheaval have nothing to become habituated to and are free to experiment, until they empower a new elite who then impose their own system.It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. — schopenhauer1
Not quite. Technology begins with bone tools, stone weapons, fire and dugout canoes. It is a process of human invention on which each succeeding civilization builds.Afterall, technology came about through this system. — schopenhauer1
Serially and temporarily. Every system takes advantage of whatever technology exists when it assumes power and adds to the body of innovations according to its own requirements. The bronze age produced a lot of war equipment and personal decoration. Agricultural expansion periods improve on farm implement. Exploring/trading systems speed up methods of transportation; industrial periods expand the use of motive power and manufactury. The monetary age creates technologies for instant transfer of funds and information. None of it is necessary to human survival; it's driven by the needs of the prevailing system.Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? — schopenhauer1
The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, just as the artistic mind creates art, music and poetry, whether it sells or not, the adventuresome mind explores and makes maps; the healing mind devises ways to mitigate pain. All of these activities were taking place in primitive cultures that knew nothing of money and lending.Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. — schopenhauer1
Until the system breaks down. The Greatest Depression, collapse of the web, storms rip apart the electric grid and wipe out the commercial crops, migrants battle locals; cities starve in the cold...Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. — schopenhauer1
I am a parasite, a surplus old person, sucking up a pension and contributing only unpopular novels. I can do that, because the relatively benign political regime under which I live has not yet unravelled. It's in the process of unravelling, but might, with a bit of luck, outlast me...You are laborer. — schopenhauer1
That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it? — Vera Mont
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.