created by AutoModerator on 20/01/2020 at 18:48 UTC
14 upvotes, 15 top-level comments (showing 15)
Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2[1]). For example, these threads are great places for:
This thread is **not** a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules[2] are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to CR2.
2: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules#wiki_commenting_rules
Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here[3].
Comment by Sazed16 at 21/01/2020 at 01:48 UTC
4 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I believe that truth is something never to be ignored.
Yes, sometimes it can be painful. We may not want to understand certain truths because they may be uncomfortable, harsh, or make us change our mindset of the world.
But these shallow arguments should not prevent us from reaching a greater understanding, a greater truth.
I propose a philosophy, but before I do so, I warn whoever is reading this. I believe that it is true, but it is also painful. Thinking about life from this viewpoint may not be desirable. I don’t think that’s a sufficient reason to avoid it, but if you do, I can understand how one may push this aside.
This could be life changing. It could shift your perspective on everything. It will likely be painful, but I don’t think you’ll regret it. I didn’t, and my proof-readers didn’t.
I publish this for those who want to know, but also so that I may be argued against. I have a vain hope that someone will prove my philosophy to be false so that I may feel at peace with myself.
There have been discussions about this sort of idea, and there’s stuff about this already out there, but these are ideas I came up with my own reasoning.
For those who want a glimpse of truth, I now disclose my philosophy.
The foundation of all motivation in people’s lives is self interest.
A child begs for a second cookie to taste the sweetness of the dessert once again. A man wants rest from exercise in order to ease his muscles. Yes, so far very few people would object to my philosophy, but it just gets worse.
A donor sacrifices a kidney to save someone’s life. This appears to be good, but let’s look deeper. He isn’t doing this for the person, he’s doing it for himself. Maybe he likes the good feeling that comes from doing service. He might not feel at peace with himself to know that someone is dying when he could have saved them. Maybe he feels pressure from family or friends to save the person.
So can he be considered a good person for donating a kidney? Does he have a good will? Yes, he is doing something generally accepted as very generous, but he is doing it for his own reasons. He is, in the end, self-centered. He isn’t really doing it for the person, even if he doesn’t consciously realize it. He simply desires the good feelings or wants to avoid bad feelings.
Is being good achievable? Are you really a moral person if the only thing you’re serving are your own inclinations? And on the other side, is it even possible to be evil?
Let’s examine a potential scenario. Imagine that you somehow, legally obtain a few slaves. Almost everyone in modern days would agree that they should be freed, so does that mean that none of us are self-centered? Owning a slave is a very selfish thing to do, while freeing one that you have no legal obligation to set free can be generally considered as selfless, or at the very least, not selfish.
But if we look deeper, we can see that this is not necessarily the case.
One woman may free the slaves because she tries to be kind. She may appear so, but her goal is to feel peace with herself. She doesn’t like the way she feels when she has a slave, so she frees her slave. She is, therefore, self-centered.
A second man may desire to be virtuous, perhaps for a god in his religion. He wants to receive prizes promised to him for being virtuous. But this creates a paradox. Everyone whose desire is to be virtuous will be doing actions that appear virtuous, and are you actually virtuous if your only intention is to look virtuous or get prizes in heaven? If so, does that mean that it’s impossible to become virtuous?
A third man may feel sorry for the slaves. He can bring himself to love them. He can guess what it feels like to be enslaved, so he feels sympathy, or maybe even empathy for them, and frees the slaves.
This appears to be the answer, and at first I thought it was. He looks to be selfless, but actually is simply self-centered. No, he is not doing it for the person to be selfless, he is doing it to the person so he can feel at ease with himself.
As you can see, the only reason anybody does anything, is for themself. That is the hard truth, but it must be admitted. When someone dies for something they do it because they know they’ll regret it if they don’t, whether that’s because they really care for the person or cause, or because they feel pressured by people around, or for another reason. No, beyond themselves they don’t really care about what they’re sacrificing for. They want to feel good about themselves, or at least, not feel bad. They might care about it in themselves, so they will sacrifice for it.
Does that make these people evil? Does that make everyone evil? How can you be a “good” human being?
I am not writing this for the benefit of those who read this over the internet. I am writing this for a semester project, and because I wanted to learn more about people’s motivations.
So does the fact that I work solely for myself make me an evil person?
I do not think so, or at least I do not *want* to think so. I think that when someone follows a good moral system of their design -- or of someone else -- they are being a good person. True, they are simply satisfying their own inner desires, but they are good inner desires.
Is someone who doesn’t kill evil because he is self-centered and working so he can feel content? No, because he is following good rules he has set in place for himself.
It may appear that there are also circumstances where someone is neutral; neither good nor evil. They follow the law because they want to avoid punishment. But let’s say that we took away the criminal justice system. Would they still follow an unenforced law?
If they did, we could safely call them a good person, because they are following their own moral system. But if they would commit those crimes if they knew no punishment would be inflicted, they would be evil.
There are also situations where it may be slightly good or slightly bad, so that it may appear neutral, even though it isn’t. For example, let's consider me writing this paper for my semester project. It is good because I am following the maxim that I will complete my assignments, but it appears to be more neutral because it’s good on only a very small level.
As we can see, there isn’t a way to be neutral. So what makes someone evil? I think that there are three things that make you a bad person.
The first is not having a moral compass. Someone who doesn’t care if they’re doing the right thing, just doing whatever pleases them. They are evil because they will inevitably do many evil things and not care whether or not they’re doing the right thing.
The second way to be evil is to have a moral compass, but not to follow it. You know killing is wrong, but you do it anyways. Even though you have a moral compass, you don’t care if you follow it.
Now, there are some people who have morals that they strive to follow, but then fail sometimes. This does not make them evil. Perhaps some of the things they have done are evil, but because they feel bad about the wrong they have done and are trying to do what’s right, they can be considered good.
The third, and final way to be evil is to have a twisted, or wrong, moral compass. You have morals, but they are either wrong (who makes them wrong is irrelevant, but what’s generally accepted as moral by the average person will often line up with what’s really wrong).
A perfect example of this is in the character Obliteration from Brandon Sanderson’s books *Firefight* and *Calamity*. Obliteration hates people with superpowers, and believes them to be evil. He wants to destroy everyone who has, or who could ever gain these abilities. Essentially, he wants to explode the universe.
He thinks that working towards this goal is the right thing to do, but it isn’t. The belief that all people with superpowers are evil is questionable, and even if he is right he’s taking a very evil path to fulfill it.
Just because you are self-centered doesn't mean that you are evil. If it did, that would mean that it would be impossible for anyone ever to be good. No, you can still be self-centered and good, as long as the part of you that you’re serving is a good part of you.
The hard truth about this philosophy is that no one is truly serving others. No, they are satisfying the part of them that likes to be generous, they are really only serving themselves, even if they are telling themselves otherwise.
But even though it is a hard truth, I believe it’s important that people know it. Society doesn’t like to accept it, people want to believe otherwise.
Deep down, I think that everyone already knew this. We just don't like to accept it.
Comment by feck_it at 21/01/2020 at 18:08 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
<<Thesis: Critical and mindful mindfulness is the key to life.>> I will attempt to compare and contrast New Age philosophies with older popular Western philosophies to show the benefits and drawbacks that I have come across so far, as both a philosophy student and someone who believes quite a lot in the potential of this movement. I will also demonstrate my personal philosophy and briefly explain my own beliefs in comparison.
Link below to full essay/article. Would love any feedback! Thanks - feckit
Metaphysics essay comparing new age to past philosophies
Comment by plasmavibe at 21/01/2020 at 20:24 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What do y’all think is the biggest differences between stoicism & taoism besides the obvious of being from different regions and eras in time?
Comment by subredditsummarybot at 20/01/2020 at 19:01 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Your Weekly /r/philosophy Recap
┌───────┬──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ score │ comments │ post │ ╞═══════╪══════════════════╪═══════════════════════════════════════════════════╡ │ │ │ `[Blog]` All we owe to animals: It is not enough │ │ 6,148 │ 431 comments[1] │ to conserve species and ecosystems. We have an │ │ │ │ ethical duty to care for each individual animal │ │ │ │ on earth – Jeff Sebo[2] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1,598 │ 228 comments[3] │ `[Video]` Freud on Death: Religion as Escapism[4] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ `[Blog]` The mysterious disappearance of │ │ 1,468 │ 588 comments[5] │ consciousness: Bernardo Kastrup dismantles the │ │ │ │ arguments causing materialists to deny the │ │ │ │ undeniable[6] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1,326 │ 312 comments[7] │ `[Blog]` The Definition of Art in a World Where │ │ │ │ AI Can Create a Masterpiece[8] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 932 │ 112 comments[9] │ `[Video]` A 97-Year-Old Philosopher Faces His Own │ │ │ │ Death (Herbert Fingarette, 1921-2018)[10] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 885 │ 32 comments[11] │ `[Blog]` Sextus Empiricus and the Search for │ │ │ │ Intellectual Tranquility[12] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ `[Blog]` On population ethics, the development of │ │ 511 │ 94 comments[13] │ Derek Parfit's thought, and the origin of │ │ │ │ Parfit's "repugnant conclusion"[14] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 284 │ 149 comments[15] │ `[Blog]` The Ethics of Defense Lawyers[16] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 270 │ 35 comments[17] │ `[Blog]` Art, Technology and Truth in Martin │ │ │ │ Heidegger’s Thought[18] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 196 │ 51 comments[19] │ `[Blog]` An ethical guide to responsible │ │ │ │ giving[20] │ └───────┴──────────────────┴───────────��───────────────────────────────────────┘
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/ep2dmz/all_we_owe_to_animals_it_is_not_enough_to/
2: https://aeon.co/essays/we-cant-stand-by-as-animals-suffer-and-die-in-their-billions
3: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eqxknk/freud_on_death_religion_as_escapism/
4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLKq5U4N1s
6: https://iai.tv/articles/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-consciousness-auid-1296
8: https://orbitant.club/can-machines-become-artists/
9: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eqhe22/a_97yearold_philosopher_faces_his_own_death/
10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX6NztnPU-4
12: https://escapeplatoscave.com/sextus-empiricus-and-the-search-for-intellectual-tranquility/
14: https://sjbeard.weebly.com/parfit-bio.html
15: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eo8py5/the_ethics_of_defense_lawyers/
16: https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/08/08/the-ethics-of-defense-lawyers/
18: https://bluelabyrinths.com/2020/01/13/art-technology-and-truth-in-martin-heideggers-thought/
19: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eq5mb2/an_ethical_guide_to_responsible_giving/
20: https://theconversation.com/an-ethical-guide-to-responsible-giving-87984
┌───────┬──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ score │ comments │ post │ ╞═══════╪══════════════════╪═══════════════════════════════════════════════════╡ │ 21 │ 183 comments[21] │ `[Open Thread]` /r/philosophy Open Discussion │ │ │ │ Thread | January 13, 2020 │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ `[Blog]` Why the foundations of physics have not │ │ │ │ progressed for 40 years: Physicists face │ │ 15 │ 110 comments[22] │ stagnation if they continue to treat the │ │ │ │ philosophy of science as a joke | Sabine │ │ │ │ Hossenfelder[23] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 8 │ 21 comments[24] │ `[Blog]` On the So Called “Grey Areas” of Sexual │ │ │ │ Consent[25] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ `[Podcast]` Sean Carroll Interviews Daniel │ │ 38 │ 15 comments[26] │ Dennett on Minds, Patterns and the Scientific │ │ │ │ Image[27] │ ├───────┼─────────────────��┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 5 │ 10 comments[28] │ `[Blog]` Knowing What You Don’t Know[29] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ `[Video]` My most recent video essay on the │ │ │ │ Absurdist and Existentialist characteristics of │ │ 8 │ 6 comments[30] │ Aqua Teen Hunger Force, specifically the language │ │ │ │ of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. I specifically compare │ │ │ │ the show's speech to that of "Waiting for Godot" │ │ │ │ and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"[31] │ ├───────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 6 │ 6 comments[32] │ `[Podcast]` Metaphysics in Australia[33] │ └───────┴──────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
22: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eo9ord/why_the_foundations_of_physics_have_not/
23: https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics-has-made-no-progress-in-50-years-auid-1292
25: https://aphilosopherstake.com/2017/05/20/on-the-so-called-grey-areas-of-sexual-consent/amp/
28: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/eqlhxs/knowing_what_you_dont_know/
29: https://www.prindlepost.org/2019/01/knowing-what-you-dont-know/
31: https://youtu.be/ud4-AsrIcVQ
32: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/ep7kaq/metaphysics_in_australia/
33: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/metaphysics-in-australia/3382496
If you would like this roundup sent to your reddit inbox every week send me a message with the subject 'philosophy'[34]. Or if you want a daily roundup, use the subject 'philosophy daily'[35]
However, I can do more.. you can have me search for any keywords you want on any subreddit you want. To customize the roundup, send a message with the subject ['custom philosophy'](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=set%20philosophy&message=200%0A25%2C%20keyword%2C%20example[36] keyphrase%2C%20last example) and in the message: specify a number of upvotes that must be reached, and then an optional list of keywords you want to search for, separated by commas. You can have as many lines as you'd like, as long as they follow this format:
50, keyword, example keyphrase, last example
You can also do ['custom philosophy daily'](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=set%20philosophy%20daily&message=200%0A25%2C%20keyword%2C%20example[37] keyphrase%2C%20last example) And you can replace philosophy with any subreddit.
See my wiki to learn more: click here
Comment by bourgie_quasar_rune at 24/01/2020 at 02:56 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
The integrity of a process can be lost as it's form is translated.
When we communicate we are letting others know what we think. Our prior experiences influence how we express our thoughts with others. Their prior experience also influences their ability to understand. Furthermore if either person has preconceived notions about the other then that hinders the communication between them.
This is amplified in a process involving many steps. As the process gets more complex it gets more difficult to discern what the overall purpose is for the process. The process itself may become intrinsically maintained after the overall goal has been achieved and then the goal is to follow the process rather than the other way around.
Comment by astrashe2 at 24/01/2020 at 14:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I apologize for asking a broad question, but I was hoping someone could give me pointers about what I could read in order to get a handle on the basics of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
I'm interested in finding out things like how someone with a materialist system might account for subjective experience or how someone might account for objective reality if they're starting with a subjective foundation.
Comment by HuggyBear516 at 25/01/2020 at 03:53 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I pose this question. What does it mean to be human? I find I struggle to immerse my self in this experience sometimes. Self awareness sometimes blocks you from enjoying the trivial sentimentality that others don’t. I try to be an objective person everything can be broken down to rationality, I see the moments that people have a large group of people experiencing and isolated form of tribalism. Yet I find myself to be a passerby staring through the window. To me being a human is just being an aspect of the universe that’s aware it exist therefore able to dictate to a point the experiences it can have. But something gets lost when you see life this way. Are human is to be able to feel and rationalize, something completely unique to us. What do you think?
Comment by Vanilla52 at 25/01/2020 at 18:02 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I've got a major man-crush on Plato, and his book The Republic has been the guiding force in my life. That's enough backstory to understand where I'm coming from- I think.
We find ourselves surrounded by lies. True, it's always been that way- but we knew the lies were lies. When we saw the Doctors endorsing cigarettes- we still called them cancer sticks. When Cosmo magazine released an article about how eating only fast-food can result in a sexier waistline... we also knew it was a bunch of malarkey. But at some point, our ability to lie has surpassed our ability to detect said lies. I think, mostly, this is evident in the political sphere.
One side says there's nothing we can do about the climate, the other says we can only save the Earth if we act 4 years ago- but we can still aim for a dystopia that isn't entirely death. People on both sides of the political spectrum raise their arms and call the other side whichever dastardly name they can. All the while, this Machiavellian distraction has prevented them from the major outrages they should be possessing.
In the Platonic world, the Good is the Good is the Good. To know the Good is to do the Good. These days, the Good seems to not exist in either sales pitch- and yet we seemed forced to pick a path.
Plato says further, that when it comes to affairs of the state... you have 3 choices. You can follow the Law, you can run for government yourself, or you can leave. Disobedience is not one of the choices he proposes- probably because that would be unfair/unjust/not Good.
Now, I think a world in which multiple Ring of Gyges (a magical ring which would allow you to become invisible at will- but for my intents represents your ability to make your unjust intentions invisible) was probably beyond Plato's writing... and the book does an amazing job despite how outdated it is... but the reality is, we live in a strange time.
I've had the thought that I want to pretend I'm a racist to make money selling stuff to other racists, and in that same breath (different corporation) sell t-shirts to ANTIFA and the radical left. I could go to as many churches as possible (without tithing/donating a thing), and join every faction/group possible in order to maximize my cashflow. (Insert argument against hedonism, thus why I didn't do it.. extra points if you get the MAXIMUM FLOW reference to cashflow)
But that thought lead me down a dark rabbit hole. You see, if you have a thought- it's probably not original. In fact, many other people have probably had this thought already. I started to look at these causes... for example, I saw a comic of a man holding 2 rifles and a pistol being surrounded by a mixed race couple, a gay couple, random brown guy, and just some other people with him saying out loud, "I'm offended."
Immediately, I felt like I need to rally the brainiac-troops to Facebook keyboard and attack the heathens trying to spread such malarkey... ignoring the fact that every share advertises this guy's shitty cartoon. I don't even agree with it, and I'm helping him out. I started to think more. The people that share the cartoon gain a sense of community. They gain people they believe are friends (Gyges Ring, ahem) and they believe- a way to detect evildoers. Much like the people against it also get those same false senses. Believe it or not, your belief in the value of a cartoon doesn't tell you anything else about your fellow man.
I thought further...
This is ingrained in everything today. You can't turn on a TV show without seeing it. For the sake of argument I'm going to go to CNN.com[1] and FOXNEWS.com[2] and see what each of their top articles are at this moment (Jan 24, 2020).
" GOP thinking on impeachment: It's the defense team's to lose[3]"
3: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/republican-senators-reaction-impeachment/index.html
and
" EXCLUSIVE: Trump shares advice for defense team as Dems conclude opening Senate trial arguments[4]"
Wow, that worked out better than expected. Their top story is about an identical situation, yet the perspective guarantees an alternate story. One shows the arrogance of the Republican party thinking they can't possibly lose... the other tells the story of a courageous general, sharing his war-advice with the troops (maybe reaching a bit far, but you know what I'm saying).
And although this kind of political partisan stuff in the media is not new... it's never been regarded as blanket truths before. Back in my day, we had Jon Stewart to point out the absurdity of the News. Although it can be argued that Jon was very left-leaning... I think he still attacked the Left a fair amount. I don't think Noah is even close to his level, and although Noah is funny- it is not the same show it once was.
My whole reason for writing this big long story is to display how I believe the world no-longer makes sense in terms of accomplishing what you set out to do. Thus, sophists are running-a-muck and what they say is the true power in society... is. In our society, if you're playing to be one of the "Good Guys," you're getting it wrong. You're going to be eaten alive by Thrasymachus.
Sophistry states:
1. Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger
2. Justice is obedience to laws
3. Justice is nothing but the advantage of another
Strength in our society can be measured by economic power.
Obeying the laws is now grey area. We have functions like "Not Criminally Responsible" and subjective takes on the law... like people openly smoking marijuana despite what the law of the land is. But, they appear to be obedient... so they get away with it.
Finally, the advantage of others is all we seem focused on. Instagram is one giant competition. Epstein is one of the most famous/powerful pedos ever... but somehow skated by. Thus, he was viewed Justly (seen happily in pics with Bill Clinton and Trump - two "Just" figureheads).
Tell me I'm wrong about it all... please. I hate being cynical, but I am at a loss. Someone has taken away this navigator's compass.
Comment by StickyNoodle69 at 26/01/2020 at 15:37 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Hi, Im new here and I'm not really one to be into philosophy. I didn't go to school taking any classes on it nor do I read books on it. Just kinda wanted to voice something that I though of a long time ago. I always ignored it but maybe this philosophy I have isn't new and someone thought of it before. Maybe you guys can show me more about it.
But yea, basically I have this idea about life. Basically, we are all just following a program ina way. Not really a program as much as an equation. I see this world as a soup/ stew of chemicals/ atoms and stuff just interacting as an equation playing itself out.
Let me give you a simple example. I have a six sided die. I roll it on the desk, it lands on 4. At that given point, it woulda landed on 4 no matter what. There is no alternate universe where it coulda landed on x. It landed on 4 for a reason. (if there is an alternate universe where it lands on 5 then it's whatever its not where I am going on this post) As everything happens for a reason, yes? It landed on 4 because many many variables and reasons. From the force applied to the die, the height it fell from, maybe the hardness of the table and die played a roll on why it lands on 4 or even the temperature of the room. All of these factors played a roll on why that die lands on 4 at that given point. There is a reason and an explaination for that die landing on 4 as there is a reason for why anything happens. Why? Because we are governed by laws.
Do you understand the point I am trying to paint for you, math is everything, it is the law. There are these laws that govern us and things. Nothing is random. There is a reason for everything, maybe we might not understand certain things and how they work, but there is a reason. (electrons being in two places at once?) Maybe one day we discover why, or maybe my theory is just flat out wrong? Who really knows. But if you can see my point, let me ask you a question. With this idea, how about our brains? The decisions we make? Are they like dies rolling on 4? Similarily chemical reactions are like the die example explained above, yea? Thnk about it on a very micro physical level. Soo, whats the difference when again, it's governed by math and reason? Our emotions are just mathamatical formulas playing out as well? Well, yea, that's my theory/ philosophy sadly.
Is randomness governed by laws and reason? By definition, no? What is truely random irl that we know of? The only thing I can think of are electrons right? Im no scientist or whatever and I dont read/ study it but correct me if I am wrong: electrons can be in multiple places at once, and they move "randomly." But to be fair, just because we don't know how something works today doesn't mean we will uncover how it works tomorrow. What irl is truely random that we can prove is random and doesn't follow any law? A computer program? Nope, thats psuedo-randomness. It is based off a written formula and can be solved if you know the formula. So what is? Idk either, you guys tell me.
Otherwise everything including you and your decisions are constricted by laws and reason. Do you feel like the way you're typing x is really your decision? Are you truely free? Those decisions really yours or are you just resolving the chemical equations in your head, plus some past experiences of what you read or learned etc all resolving into a response you will soon type up to defy my theory.
It's like we are just here to watch and learn. Hell, who says it's just one soul per body, these souls/ conciousness can't really do anything if the physical part (chemicals in the brain etc) are in full control. What does it or they do? Just watch and learn? Why were you put here to suffer, learn, or be rewarded?
Let me know what you guys think. I'm not super educated so I may bring some stuff up and sound really stupid but I hope I painted an image to where you can understand my idea/ theory. go easy on me! :) What do you think!?
Comment by [deleted] at 23/01/2020 at 17:29 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I'll give it a shot. I was thinking about the concept of infinity and how I believe it surrounds almost everything in the universe. One particular thing that came to mind is the concept of going infinitely slow vs being at a full stop. If I were standing still, or if I decided to take one step forward with the intention of being infinitely slow while doing so, what is the difference? Are they considered the same thing?
Comment by vishwassachdeva at 24/01/2020 at 11:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm currently reading myth of sisyphus and I have read upto the start of Absurd Creation part. Although I guess I'm understanding almost everything but still it takes me alot of time like 10-15 mins per page. Is it really a tough read or I need other reads to fully comprehend it?
Comment by datgreenfrog at 24/01/2020 at 19:16 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I recently took a philosophy course in high school (grade 12) and thoroughly enjoyed it. When it came time to apply to university I applied for philosophy programs and am hoping to do a double with philosophy and political science. Anyways my questions is specific to the employability of a philosophy degree. I'm hoping in the future to either become a police officer or work for an intelligence agency. Would a philosophy degree be seen as an asset in those fields? (Would love some input from someone who'd majored in philosphy and is employed in one of those fields, thanks.)
Comment by jtree77720 at 27/01/2020 at 03:55 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
How should we treat others?
Let me set some assumptions: We've evolved from chimps and there is only this life and body. Also the objective of life itself (not only human life) is to replicate and persist over time.
Let me define to treat as to consciously behave in regard to others in a spectrum between behave for the other benefits and behave for your own benefit. Not sure if i'm clear in this point, sry, english is not my fist language
Now, how do we have a conscious? As we evolved from chimps we are social animals. It allow us to navigate our everyday more complex social interactions. Those who had a stronger conscious survived.
How should we treat others? In order for our genes to persist we should treat our children well, so that they may continue expreding our genes once we are gone and continue to pursue the objective of life.
How should we treat others that are not our children? Our siblings do share must of our genes, so it may be a good investment to treat them well , but not as much as our children.
Our neighbours used to be genetically closer, way back in the day people use to live all their life on the same town and as such everyone was more or less related to one another. But now our neighbour may be from a different continent. How should we treat someone we are not related? Certainly not as good as we treat our siblings. We are in a competitive environment, resources are finite and we should prioritize our children and siblings on the hand out of them. Only after we had succeeded in satisfy to the fullest their needs and wants we should start worrying about unrelated neighbours and start considering the needs and wants of other humans and humanity as a whole.
How should we treat the not human? Again, only after we satisfy to the fullest their needs and wants we should start worrying about not humans. Perhaps starting with monkeys.
Edit 1: 1.Should not be seen as hard bariers but as a gradient of how well you should treat it. Not shure how to phrase it.
2. Hope you guys like the argument and let me know your counters, please maintain the assumptions on the first parragraph.
Edit 2:
Repost from original atempt to here
Comment by Vanilla52 at 26/01/2020 at 17:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Develop a full post that matches all criteria...
Admins: Post in discussion
Me: Posts in discussion
Results: 0 responses in 2 days
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not sure how philosophical this forum actually is. Looks like admin power censorship- killing a fly with a machine gun.
Comment by [deleted] at 20/01/2020 at 18:59 UTC
-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]