The Philosophy thread

[Galaxialconda]

When you can't see it, can you prove it is truely there?

Prove that anything is 100% definate.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

My favorite moral dilemma, and to avoid stupid hypothetical cop-out answers, I will state the situation simply:

-There are 30 people of equal human value (if you subscribe to that sort of notion)
-Kill 1, the other 29 live
-Don't kill 1, all 30 are killed by someone else.
-Either way, you live.

What do you do?

 

[Copter400]

Now here's a question.

How do I know, that when you say something is green, you are in fact referring to what I see as red? Do other people see black as I see Orange? Is that why Goths like to wear black?

If that is the case, everyone seems to be grinding along okay, so it's not important.

Also, 2000 POSTS BITCHES! HOO-RAH!

 

[John Galt]

Psh, philosophy's subjective, people who argue about it get nowhere >_>

Having said that, "You don't exsist" is quite a claim. What's you're definition of existing then? In my opinion, as long as you are "aware" you exist, if only to yourself.

But you can't prove to me that YOU'RE aware of yourself. For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

Quantum, schuantum. Reality exists. You could sit around all day babbling that reality is an illusion and that nothing is certain, but at the end of the day you'd still have to find food, water and shelter. I don't see any good coming from doubting the universe.

It'll get rid of those damn existentialists. We just got to hope that one convinces themself that their hunger doesn't exist. Only a matter of time before we can starve them all out.

As for ethics, I keep it simple. The ends justify the means. Whoever has control of the situation has the ability to say what actions are just or not. Morality, in my view, stems from authority as an extension of the authority's own convictions.

My favorite moral dilemma, and to avoid stupid hypothetical cop-out answers, I will state the situation simply:

-There are 30 people of equal human value (if you subscribe to that sort of notion)
-Kill 1, the other 29 live
-Don't kill 1, all 30 are killed by someone else.
-Either way, you live.

What do you do?

Kill the one. I don't want to miss out on a chance to kill and be seen as a hero.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Since when were electronics and chemistry not molecular / quantum reactions?

What i meant was that the brain probably doesn't directly read those as information. Chemical and electronic reactions still build off molecular ones, and those off quantum ones obviously.

 

[Copter400]

I agree, proving existence is futile.

Not half as futile as trying to disprove existence.

 

[Jolly Madness]

I usually have serious problems with understanding how other people think. So that must mean that I'm the only sane person left.

 

[RedDiablo]

My favorite moral dilemma, and to avoid stupid hypothetical cop-out answers, I will state the situation simply:

-There are 30 people of equal human value (if you subscribe to that sort of notion)
-Kill 1, the other 29 live
-Don't kill 1, all 30 are killed by someone else.
-Either way, you live.

What do you do?

I would let the 30 be killed by others, as killing someone is a very unethical thing to do.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Existence is subjective. Thus if you believe you exist then you do.

What do we think on morals? Do we think we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number? Or should we operate on self advancement and self preservation?

Both will work for the preservation of the species, but one is bad for society and civilization

 

[Rankao]

All things philosophical!

Arguments, your favorite philosophers, anything!


I'll start:

You don't exist; prove to me otherwise.

Even if I was some advanced A.I. that was just swarming around the internet, I would be able to say that I, an advanced A.I. that is just swarming around the internet exist because, I am able to simply make an argument against you and point out that being able to respond in real time, and comprehend my own existence is enough for me to say I exist.

Spoiler: Note to OP

Please learn to spell the common words or get Firefox

 

[Uncompetative]

All things philosophical!

Arguments, your favourite philosophers, anything!


I'll start:

You don't exist; prove to me otherwise.

With the greatest respect, you cannot prove that you exist to yourself any more than the person currently writing this sentence can prove that their notion of self is anything more than an illusionary by-product of the phenomenon of consciousness yielding the notion of existence and an indefinite concept of 'I'.

 

[Baby Tea]

You don't exsist; prove to me otherwise.

I seem to recall an old Hindu or Buddhist (Can't fully remember) story of a man who said the same thing. The following day the man was walking through the jungle, and a bull elephant charged him suddenly, certain to kill him. Well the man fled from the elephant and up a near by tree!

Another man walking by had saw what happened and asked the man: If nothing is real, why did you flee?

And the man in the tree said: Ahh, but nothing is real! Therefore the elephant didn't chase me, I didn't run, and I'm not in a tree!

I'm pretty sure that's how it went, give or take a few lines. Anyways, it always made me laugh.

 

[Sisyphus0]

Electronic and chemical reactions in the brain.
Possibly molecular or quantum reactions, but most likely just electronics and chemistry.

While yes it is a matter of chemical reactions I was talking about it in a metaphysical aspect. Such as in a hypothetical case of a 'matrix' idea, a single mind imagining everything. To arrive at scientific claims one must first get over the skeptical hurdles attacking base line principles. Such as when I said we cannot say we think and you said it was your brain, while obviously that's the answer it is only the answer in so far as our senses can discern. Or in so far as the world appears to us, if it exists at all that is. I was getting at if anything is true.

 

[Sisyphus0]

My favorite moral dilemma, and to avoid stupid hypothetical cop-out answers, I will state the situation simply:

-There are 30 people of equal human value (if you subscribe to that sort of notion)
-Kill 1, the other 29 live
-Don't kill 1, all 30 are killed by someone else.
-Either way, you live.

What do you do?

I would kill all 30 myself.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

My favorite moral dilemma, and to avoid stupid hypothetical cop-out answers, I will state the situation simply:

-There are 30 people of equal human value (if you subscribe to that sort of notion)
-Kill 1, the other 29 live
-Don't kill 1, all 30 are killed by someone else.
-Either way, you live.

What do you do?

It's not an either/or - there are actually 31 people in the scenario.

I can:
-offer to kill myself to save all 30
-offer to switch places with someone, if they want to live badly enough to take on the burden of that decision
-ask if there is anyone willing to volunteer their life to save the others

My martial arts teacher, a Buddhist with a strong commitment to non-violence came up with her own solution. Apparently there is a Buddhist koan that asks the same question. This assumes the implied either/or of the proposed dilemma, and none of the alternatives that I proposed.

She would kill one person, because it would be better for her to take the karma of one death on her soul than to force another person take the karma of 30 deaths upon their soul.

 

[Copter400]

She would kill one person, because it would be better for her to take the karma of one death on her soul than to force another person take the karma of 30 deaths upon their soul.

That's some fine koaning there, Lou.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I like it. Them Buddhists, man, they do them some damn fine philosophy.

My persistant philosophical question is the nature of evil - is it volitional or conditional? Can you be evil, commit evil, without realizing it? Or does true evil require active malice?

It's related to the question of original sin, in a way. There is a condition in which an evil exists, like slavery for instance. (And for the purposes of argument, I am going to start with the assumption that slavery is evil. Duh.) So, people who perpetuate this condition of evil, say in this case, buying, selling, and keeping slaves, without realizing or questioning the nature of their actions - are they committing evil? Or are they innocent of evil themselves by virtue of being unaware of it? Does true evil require conscious intent or active malice?

 

[BlueMage]

All things philosophical!

Arguments, your favourite philosophers, anything!


I'll start:

You don't exsist; prove to me otherwise.

Y halo thar Solipsism.

Here's one for y'all:

"Human beings are fundamentally opposed to thinking for themselves, and instead prefer to be led by what they believe is a kind and caring figure who can tell them what to think. Ergo, the most humane form of governance is a benevolent dictatorship with open channels of communication."

 

[gremily]

People who recognise you, the choices you make, and ideas that you beleive in is what makes you exist.
If you really beleive that you don't exist, then why do we do things. No one can just "not do anything." Even if your dead, your body is decaying, therefore your doing something. I have had similair thoughts the other day. What if I'm not who I really am and I see and hear things differently that everyone else?

My point is, is that it is kind of hard not to exist. After all. How can I be typeing this thread if I didn't exist.