Thread: Philosophy

I don't believe philosphy exists.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I don't believe philosphy exists.

-dale

Explain.

The way that can be explained is not the way

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Explain.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Not in my opinion.

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

-dale

Do humans have free will?

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

Is morality an objective truth or a social construct?
and related: If God doesn't exist, can a system of morality really matter?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Samudra

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

I very much agree.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I encourage you to add to the Philosophy thread I have started in the Science forum, that seems to be an even better arena for our philosophical clashes.

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

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Thank you for agreeing, I would further add that Natural Philosophy is superior to Moral Philosophy because Natural Philosophy forms the physical background for our sense of morals.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I think I've shown that suicide can be viewed dispassionately. This time, I'll show an example. For expediency's sake I will argue on a basis of utilitarianism (but remember that I am not a utilitarian all the time).

Say that I am a parasite on society, I cause a lot of damage. While I'm not on WAB, I'm cooking up explosives and plotting the destruction of American society. Thus, it would be beneficial to many people if I committed suicide. Utilitarian logic dictates that I must kill myself in order to spare society the inevitable damage that ensues from my continued existence.

However, the emotions of my family members would probably urge against this. The would say, "We can never let this boy kill himself, we love him," (Yes, unfortunately, my family is not as calculating as I am).

This is a clear case of when emotions interfere with logic, to the detriment of many.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Although there are natural disasters, they don't produce that much of an evolutionary effect. Many natural disasters select against people living in a certain area, not the quality of the person. Thus, if Einstein lived in Pakistan and was crushed in an earthquake (at least he would have known the inherent energy in the mass of the collapsing roof), one would be hard pressed to say that was 'survival of the fittest,' especially when stupid people in safe areas breed like rabbits. So, while natural disasters do technically provide a form of natural selection, it has almost no affect on the broader human population.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Parlez-vous Francais? Well, I don't. I enforce the Natural Sciences, not Moral Philosophy, which I think deals only with the interrelation of human fancies. What do you mean by 'conquest over greater truths'?

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Well, we can't just disregard the physical universe. I dislike your division between the human world and the physical world. There is no division. We are all deeply, fundamentally in unison with the physical universe.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Because to me, emotions are not the source of our change in perception. If anything, they are a by-product, just like consciousness.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Modern science is doing a good job of describing the human body. We have found no 'spiritual matter' no 'extra-physical' phenomena. In time, the division between ourselves and the exterior physical universe will melt away. This is similar to the Buddhist concept of 'anatman' or no-self. If one is fortunate, the illusion of the self and all that entails melts away to reveal a united universe of physical precision.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

It seems you and I have some real philosophical issues to resolve, lets take it to the Philosophy thread.

We sure do. I have done that.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

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.

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.

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 existseperately as an entity but is instead a construct of energy and matter.

You accept two opposite premises in the same paragraph.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?