Bulgaroctonus

It seems that all the threads I contribute to inevitably become philosophical discussions. Therefore, I invite all people interested to participate in a new thread dedicated to the issues that come up.

Some of the questions might include:

What does it mean to exist? (Ontological thought)
Do humans have free will?
Does the self really exist?
Is morality an objective truth or a social construct?
and related: If God doesn't exist, can a system of morality really matter?

My own philosophical beliefs lean towards the physical sciences. I view myself as a complex physical system, incapable of free will and morally irresponsible. This is close to a nihilistic (belief in nothing) view. I am a fleeting moment in a chain reaction that reaches back for infinity as far as I know.

My basic personal anxiety has often been self's attempt to be real in the face of a momentous realization and truth: my self does not exist seperately as an entity but is instead a construct of energy and matter.

dalem

I don't believe philosphy exists.

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

Explain.

Parihaka

The way that can be explained is not the way

dalem

There is no spoon.

Seriously, I find philosophy, what little I know about it, much like the physical act of trying to lift yourself off of the ground by your own bootstraps. Lots of effort and in the end you go nowhere.

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

Philosophy definitely has its uses, although it is uninteresting to many people. Philosophy provides the foundation for science, and is important in attempting to fundamentally understand and describe the universe.

dalem

Not in my opinion.

But this is a thread about philosophy, so I will stop detracting and bow out. Enjoy!

-dale

Samudra

The will is not free - it is a phenomenon bound by cause and effect.

Morality depends on the moral constitution of a individual.
A better(and safer) description would be: Morality is realtive..?

Monk

In trying to address the array of metaphysical events which we are bound to do on this thread we need to be clear about one thing, What form of philosophy are we discussing "Natural philosophy" or "Moral Philosophy". I see that we have repeatedly confused ourselves on this point on several threads so far leading us nowhere. Due to this indiscretion we are at permanent logger heads.

__________________
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

Sir Winston Churchill

Bulgaroctonus

I very much agree.

Bulgaroctonus

Moral philosophy does play a role in modern philosophical thought. Although I don't ascribe actual truth to morals, we can still discuss them if you want. We can easily banter around about moral philosophy.

If you want to discuss moral philosophy preface your statement with something like: "Supposing that morals exist..." and then proceed with your idea.

Monk

I have shifted this argument out of the assisted Suicide thread and into the Philosophy thread as you suggested, Let the war begin..


We will have to disagree again. "Natural philosophy is superior to Moral philosophy" on what basis? And who sets the premise for this contest?
"Physical background for our sense of morals" - - This is an untruth, Sense of morals is as emotional a factor as any. I can demonstrate this if called upon.



Not really. This is a rather Uni-dimensional view. If at the time of your committing these crimes you end up killing someone who is about to commit an even greater crime you would have done the nation a great service. Another view could be, your actions could lead to the implementation of better systems in the american society to prevent such events in future. Highly subjective example when looked upon from different directions.



You are looking at natural disasters on a very minor scale. I believe that the universe indulges in natural selection from time to time. For example the Dinosaurs were destructive and were not credible inheritors for this planet therefore nature chose them for elimination. Similarly, Wo/Man so far has proved to be more utilitarian therefore the neanderthal man has eveolved into Homo-Sapiens and so on and the process may continue. if as you say that the universe is a sum of rationalities at all times then what I am stating here holds good.


Un peu de, Monsieur. "Interrelation of Human fancies".....mmmmmm not very flattering. Care to explain patriotic sentiments, where a soldier sacrifices his life for his nation breaking a very fundamental logical tenet of "Self-preservation"? Is that just human fancy? Because such events have brought great benefits throughout history.
"Conquest over greater truths" - A better way and perhaps a more successful way to understand existential truth.


I have never advocated disregard of the physical universe. My support to moral philosophy does not propogate disregard for the physical universe.
There most certainly is a division between physical reality and certain aspects of the Human life (Which I suspect is going to be the premise of our debate). The union with the physical universe also exists only to the physical human self and not necessarily to the Spiritual aspect of Man. This is what we will I hope discover.


I disagree again. Emotions to a large extent does lead to change in pereception. Several examples can be given to this end. If you statement were true and emotions are not a source of change in perception then we would be bound by logic and therefore none of our decisions would counter logic. Which we already know is untrue.
Define Conciousness.

Not really. No one claimed spirituality to be matter which we should look for. In fact the belief is that spirituality transcends matter.
You are confusing yourself with the buddhist philosophy of "anatman", the concept does not in my opinion defy the existence of "atman" but propogates the theory of Union of "atman" and the urge to attain union with the "paramatman". The highlighted part is precisely what I mean, you have conceptually just explained union with "paramatman" or "Moksha". I am assuming you know these concepts since you raised it. Most of the Buddhist philosophies are sourced from hindu tenets.


We sure do. I have done that.

Monk

One can hardly "banter about" moral philosophy, my friend.
I don't have to. We have several historical events in support of the existence of morals and immorality.

Praxus

Why do all the particles interact the way they do? It is in their nature. Just like it is in the nature of the particles in our brain to allow for free will. Your problem is over.

You accept two opposite premises in the same paragraph.

Monk

How do you attribute nature to particles? What is a precursor to this phenomena in particles? How do you attribute free will to particles, is there a logical premise to this statement?