Comments

  • The purpose of life
    ↪Terrapin Station


    I'll just skip to the chase; the mystery common goal behind all of these things you name is, happiness.

    Look hard enough at the motivations that make people do these things they do, and you'll see that these motivations are all just happiness in disguise.

    Eg: people yearn for money because this will bring them happiness in the forms of cars,houses,girls,etc,etc.
  • Question about early Wittgenstein vs latter.
    ↪Barry Etheridge


    I never said that computers bear a fantastic, twin-like resemblance to the human brain.

    My contention all along, was that computers are better analogues than any other entity (and hence the best analogue) for the functions of the human brain.

    I see nothing in your reply that disproves this claim.

    Computers simply do not think. They have absolutely no awareness of what is passing through their logic gates and no ability to differentiate. They have no capacity for doubt, for self-correction, for originality or insight. And most significantly of all they are not self-initiating. Anything a computer does that looks even remotely human it does at the behest of a human programmer. — Barry Etheridge

    Listing a whole lot of differences between a computer and a human brain doesn't disprove the claim either.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Could you now find some common goal that lies behind the things you name?
  • Can Belief Be Moral?
    ↪Sapientia
    Although I agree that actions can correctly be categorised as moral or immoral — Sapientia

    By this do you mean you endorse some form of objective morality, where actions,beliefs,etc can be "correctly categorised" in a manner independent of the person doing the categorising?
  • Question about early Wittgenstein vs latter.
    ↪Question


    I'm not sure what Wittgenstein would have said, but I think "logical truths'' ,in the binary true/false sense of the term, was disposed of anyway in explaining reality, almost immediately after the discovery of quantum physics.

    I know nothing much about this sort of thing myself, but I've seen somewhere that quantum physics implies that it is possible for a quantum particle to be in two places at the same time.

    Besides what is a ''logical space''?
  • Question about early Wittgenstein vs latter.
    ↪Barry Etheridge
    You do realise that you've just presented an entirely circular argument? Computers are the best analogue of human brains so we figure that human brains must work something like computers? How do we judge that computers are the best analogue? Cos they work a bit like human brains! Needs some work does that! — Barry Etheridge

    I believe you have failed to comprehend the argument. So here's how it goes, explained in a simpler fashion.

    We first observe human brains and their functions and list down the properties we observe.

    Afterwards, we observe computing machines and the way they function and list down their properties separately and independent of the previous list.

    Now we compare the two lists and note that they share many similarities (eg: both human brains and computers are used for the storage and processing of information), while also noting that their differences are comparatively very few.

    We now consider other candidate entities which we suspect to be analogous to human brains and put them through the exact same process outlined above.

    Now you would see that computers are the highest on the list of potential candidates in the aspect of sharing similarities with the human brain.

    Thus, we conclude that computers are the best analogue for the human brain.

    Pray explain how that is circular?
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Well then, what do you think is the most common goal that people are interested in?
  • Representation and Noise
    The idea is that thought takes place in the domain of mental representations — Mongrel

    This seems like a very reasonable thing to say.What opposition is there to this claim?
  • Why do we place priority on harm?
    ↪darthbarracuda


    It just happens to be a component of human psychology to look at things more in terms of danger and harm instead of pleasure and benefits. It's developed through evolution over time and is also called.............. the "survival instinct''.
  • Question about early Wittgenstein vs latter.
    ↪Barry Etheridge


    Computers are, currently at least, the best metaphor we have for the workings of the human brain. So it isn't unreasonable to extrapolate from computers to hypothesize that the human brain must work in similar ways.
  • Why the oppressed can be racist
    Are all these oppressed people you speak of, irrational?
  • Why the oppressed can be racist
    the oppressed need to more precisely identify the oppressors and focus their anger, hatred and militant actions instead of indiscriminately dispersing them across whole peoples. — John
  • Representation and Noise
    ↪Mongrel


    Rephrased: What is the definition of a "representative theory of mind''?
  • Representation and Noise
    ↪Mongrel
    the next step might be that what we call the world is in a sense a complex of ideas — Mongrel

    By this however you could only conclude that the part of the world with which we can interact is a complex of ideas, but not necessarily that the entire world, including the aspects of it with which we have no connection in any way, is a complex of ideas.

    You agree right?
  • Why the oppressed can be racist
    ↪John


    Why would any rational oppressed person disperse his/her anger instead of directing it at their oppressor?
  • Representation and Noise
    ↪Mongrel


    What is your interpretation of a representative theory of mind?
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Agustino


    What is the term in your ''framework'' then, that represents what people choose and act based on?

    Say this term is "X''.

    Then here's my OP question rephrased in your terminology: What is the X which most people have in their life?
  • Is Absurdism the best response to life's lack of meaning?
    ↪Albert Keirkenhaur


    Accepting that there is no inherent meaning, and living in spite of the fact. — Albert Keirkenhaur

    "In spite of" seems to be unnecessarily rebellious. It appears to suggest that we, as humans, should somehow rise in mutiny against this lack of meaning and live, simply for the sake of mocking nature for what little effect the lack of meaning had on us.

    I'd suggest a gentler, more accepting approach where you come to understand that life has no inherent meaning, and then attribute your own subjective meaning to your life and subsequently, live beneath this banner of hope you've woven for yourself.
  • Self Inquiry
    ↪Cavacava
    I think my self arises out of the dialectic of this process, whose abode is language — Cavacava

    Are you saying that language is a necessity for the presence of your self?
  • Is an armed society a polite society?
    ↪Ovaloid


    An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers.
  • Eliminating consistent identity to eliminate association fallacies: a good idea?
    That's a nice idea but it's in a way, a double-edged sword.

    One advantage I could think of, for keeping the names constant throughout the issues is that whenever the issue in discussion is a really deep one, and the poster couldn't possibly type his entire position on the issue, any reader could put his post in context with what he's posted before, and thus understand where the idea is coming from better.

    But then again such a constancy also has the flaws you point out, so kudos to you for thinking about this new type of forum.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Agustino
    It is the purpose, whether someone is actually fulfilling it (or is aware it is the purpose, or wants to fulfil it) is a different story. — Agustino

    Well then you aren't answering the question posted in the OP.

    Such as? — Agustino

    I gave the example of the car accident literally one line below.

    Absolutely not, because virtue has less to do with physical aspects and more to do with her character (what her will is directed towards) which remains the same. — Agustino

    You seem to be overlooking the fact that character is formed by physical aspects in the first place. For an example, someone born in a well to do, educated family would quickly acquire this ''character'' you expect, owing to the influence he receives via these external factors of education,family traditions,etc.

    On the other hand, someone who happened to be unlucky enough to be born the son of a thief may acquire a contrary form of character via the external, physical aspects of watching and learning what his dad does. Would you really then blame the thief's son for not having the ''character'' you expect?

    Aaaand you didn't answer my bank robber example.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Barry Etheridge


    You certainly seem to be claiming that what 'humans in general' do is by definition the most rational and true expression of their purpose. — Barry Etheridge

    I agree that my OP statement excludes the possibility of happiness being a mental illness, but since you've said nothing to show that it is a mental illness in the medical sense, I'll just ignore that for the moment.

    I certainly said nothing of the sort quoted above. All I said was that happiness is what humans in general strive towards. At no point did I conclude that this is "the most rational and true expression of their purpose''.

    In other words I was merely stating an empirical fact about human behaviour without evaluating the rationality and truth of this fact.

    Happiness is, after all, nothing but a delusional state which denies reality and in its worst expressions (where it reaches near cultic status) actively seeks to hide reality from us all. It is no more than a permanent state of denial which seems to be a pretty poor thing to be considered the purpose or meaning of life — Barry Etheridge

    You seem to be speaking with reference to a rather narrow interpretation of what happiness is.

    While it may be true that happiness at times appears along side narcissism,etc this, by no means implies that there are no other forms that it could take.

    Forget not my friend, that the feeling a human gets by giving a piece of bread to a beggar on a street corner belongs too, under the umbrella of happiness.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Agustino
    If we are to judge the excellence of a human being, — Agustino

    You've got to remember here that the point of the question is not to compare humans by means of some morality contest that judges their ''excellence''. The point is to discover what general purpose lies behind the decisions and actions of an ordinary human being.

    Now while it may be true that virtue is a fantastic way of measuring someone's moral '' excellence'', this by no means implies that attaining this moral excellence is a motivation behind general human behaviour.

    For an example, a perfectly ordinary human being may don a mask, arm himself with a machine gun and subsequently rob a bank. What role then, would your theory of humans ''striving towards virtue'' play in explaining what motivated this guy to rob a bank?

    I think your mistake lies in confusing what should (should in the moral sense) be the general purpose behind human actions with what actually is the general purpose behind human actions.

    Virtue is inner strength - nothing can take it away — Agustino

    Finally, this isn't entirely true. There are lots of external circumstances which could take away your virtue.

    Remember that virtue is merely a notion dealt with by a certain portion of our brain. If some external factor, say a car accident, were to damage this part of the brain, our capability of even understanding what virtue is, would disappear along with it.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪unenlightened


    If there is nothing you strive towards in living your life, then what stops you killing yourself?
  • Should torture be a punishment for horrendous crimes?
    ↪Agustino


    Would you not be equally satisfied with the knowledge that the perpetrators of ISIS are detained in maximum security prisons with no hope of escape, since this too is a situation where the said evil is overcome and the region in question delivered from the threat of destruction?

    In other words, is it really necessary to execute even terrorists, when life imprisonment would serve the same purposes that would drive you to perform the execution in the first place?

    In fact, you could even say that in the case of terrorists it would specifically be ill advised to execute them since this would only entice other extremist organizations to act the same way, in order to appear as heroic martyrs before their people and whatever God they believe in.
  • An Image of Thought Called Philosophy
    ↪Hoo


    All you need, in order to be a philosopher, is to be, in Descartes's words, ''a thinking being''.

    My own definition of philosophy (some might think this too broad), is any activity that employs thought.

    This definition would then of course, encompass all of the people and activities you refer to, from air conditioning to mathematics, as long as these are done with conscious thought.

    In short, the philosopher need not even be a human at all. A lone three-eyed, five-eared creature sprawled out on the surface of Mars contemplating the redness of the rock before him, would be just as much a philosopher as any wise man on earth.
  • Should torture be a punishment for horrendous crimes?
    ↪Agustino
    For one, I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. — Agustino

    It would be a very sad day for humanity indeed if, as you say, a majority of people would feel good at seeing the suffering of another human being. It reminds one, of days in medieval times on which criminals were disemboweled before a crowd of commoners, all shrieking with delight while drinking in the ghastly spectacle.

    You've failed to understand the mental state of people who end up behaving the way you describe in the OP. People of this sort are termed "psychopaths'', are born with no sense of empathy, kindness, etc. and therefore cannot help but act in these ways. Therefore, torturing them would be the equivalent of torturing a three year old kid who just ripped off the pages of your favourite book, without of course, knowing the value of the book.

    A more rational reason is so that other criminals who intend to commit similar crimes see what will happen to them and repent sooner rather than later. And the final reason I have is that such a punishment ensures that justice is adequately done - which is required for people to have faith in the justice system. — Agustino

    The last two reasons you cite are, in short, deterrence and increment of public faith in the justice system. To deal with the first,observe that an exactly equal amount, if not greater, amount of deterrence would be the result if the criminal was locked away for life in prison. Remember that prison is by no means a nice place, and many criminals would much rather choose a short interval of sharp torture than an eternity of long, drawn out torture and molestation by the not quite so friendly inmates of modern prisons.

    As for the second reason, I don't see how people would end up having faith in a brutal criminal justice system which relishes torturing people. What,in reality, would happen is quite the opposite. The public would see this uncivil justice system itself as the enemy, and thus would no longer feel comfortable handing over their squabbles over to receive what they would,not unreasonably, see as warped judgment. Instead then, they would start "settling'' their disputes on their own, which would lead to mafias, clan wars and later, the disintegration of the entire fabric of society.

    I hope this convinces you.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Michael
    For example, I don't really think about happiness but about comfort, relaxation, and entertainment (in the sense of leisurely preoccupation). It's more about avoiding stress, boredom, and pain than about anything as positive as joy. — Michael

    The sense in which I used the word ''happiness'' is described in paragraph three of the OP and it includes relaxation, comfort, etc. that you refer to.

    As for people not considering happiness as an option they strive towards, this is of course what appears to be true on the surface, but then, once logically broken down, their actions could be reduced to the search for happiness (see the example in the last paragraph of the OP).
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Michael


    Sure yeah,that could be the purpose of someone's life at some particular moment.But note that these desires change all the time.

    For an example you might desire now to eat an ice cream and then later desire to read Wittgenstein.

    So the result of denoting these desires as the purpose of life is that you'd end up with an ever changing set of candidates for the purpose of life,which thus makes it harder to pin down a single purpose.

    The natural question now is,do you think there is some unifying property that all of these human desires share?If so,then this property could easily be named the goal everyone strives towards.
  • The purpose of life
    ↪Agustino


    Why do you think developing virtue and character is something worth striving for?
  • Self Inquiry
    ↪unenlightened
    A plastic bag is the universe becoming a container, and a pile of horse shit is the universe becoming aromatic. Every-damn-thing is the universe being that thing. — unenlightened

    This just seems majestically misguided.

    Many would say that every damn thing is an element of the set of damn things that make up the universe.You seem to be claiming the exact opposite.

    Answer then,the following question: If the universe is both the equivalent of a plastic bag,and the equivalent of a pile of horse shit,then would you say that a pile of horse shit is equivalent to a plastic bag?

    ( B=A and B=C imply A=C)
  • What are your normative ethical views?
    ↪Agustino
    They are provided adequate nutrition and means of living, and are treated with decency. They can leave if they wish, but they're not likely to find employment and means of sustenance with the same ease in other places. — Agustino

    I don't see how you could disagree with the modern Indian practices of "slavery'' in view of the above quote.

    Lots of these people working as "slaves'' would have far worse lives if given independence and released out into the general Indian public,where they would immediately be recognized as poor and weak and subsequently preyed upon by other powerful,less decent people than their former employers.

    Furthermore,it seems unreasonable to even call this slavery, since this sort of situation where these people are given decent wages and accommodation is radically different from what slavery refers to generally.
  • Meno's Paradox
    ↪Michael

    This question could easily be given a satisfactory answer,namely, you both know what you are looking for and don't know what you are looking for,simultaneously.

    I shall now explain the apparent contradiction.

    The explanation lies in the fact that the word "know'' could be used in a sense which allows both of these statements to be true at the same time.The sense which I refer to is as follows:

    1.You know what is inside the box in the sense that you are aware of at least one property of the thing contained within the box(for an example,you know that the object in question is of the right size that permits it to fit within the box,which is a piece of information which counts as knowledge about the object).

    2.You do not know what is inside the box in the sense that you are not aware of the other properties of the object in question in addition to the properties mentioned above.Thus since you have no knowledge of these other properties,in this sense,you do not know what is inside the box.

    I hope this clears up your paradox.
  • I hate hackers
    ↪jkop


    I'm pretty sure this sense in which the word ''hacking'' could be used is not the sense in which the OP poster uses it, since clearly,hacking in this sense is not something anyone would have any reason to oppose.
  • Honest question: To any nihilists out there, what brought you to your realization?
    ↪zookeeper


    But surely,if you agree that life could be attributed with a subjective meaning,then how could you be an efilist in view of the fact that your life could be given some subjective value which would make it worth living instead of terminating?
  • Proving the universe is infinite
    ↪John Kernan
    Now some logical possibilities may not be physically instantiated but subsist in a non-physical state — John Kernan

    I concur with what you say before the above quote,but this sentence I find hard to digest.

    When you say that they "subsist in a non-physical state'',in what sense do they ''subsist''?And of what nature is the realm of their subsistence?
  • Honest question: To any nihilists out there, what brought you to your realization?
    ↪zookeeper


    That phrase is far from being semantic garbage,but since I fear your mental faculties lack the acuity to comprehend its full meaning,here is the gist of it,in simpler words:

    Do you believe that life could be given any subjective value/meaning? If so,why? And if not,then on what grounds are you an elfilist?
  • An Image of Thought Called Philosophy
    ↪Hoo


    Well it depends of course,on the potential philosopher's views on the importance of tradition.

    If the person in question takes historical traditions in philosophy very seriously,then yeah,he would be reluctant to stray beyond the well-worn paths etched through the lands of thought by the ancients who travelled before him(sorry,felt like being poetic there).

    However,on the flip side,if the person in question is adventurous in spirit and contemptuous of tradition,then this "power of history" that Deleuze refers to would have no effect on him and he would go on to discover original ways of thought.
  • Honest question: To any nihilists out there, what brought you to your realization?
    ↪zookeeper


    How did you then conclude that life is incapable of being given any subjective meaning by the humans who live it?
Home » hunterkf5732