The Philosophy thread

[gremily]

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?

That is exactly what puzzles me.

 

[Fruhstuck]

All things philosophical!

Arguments, your favourite philosophers, anything!


I'll start:

You don't exsist; prove to me otherwise.

Can't; But why assume the worst?
It serves no purpose

 

[gremily]

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."

A dicator ship is highly dangerous. One ruler can not just make a quick decision and put to act. The effects can cause serious damage to the comunity. It takes several sequences to pass a decision in order to verify if the decision is logical or not.

This why I love Anceint Rome, a Republic, and Jesus.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Where is the line between being philosophical and just sounding like a snob?

 

[gremily]

Where is the line between being philosophical and just sounding like a snob?

When you start stateing your opinions and personal views on how much you can't stand people you dislike and how much better you are than everyone else, then your considered a snob.

 

[Copter400]

Where is the line between being philosophical and just sounding like a snob?

There's a line?

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?

The problem with this question, I think, is that evil is subjective.

 

[BlueMage]

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."

A dicator ship is highly dangerous. One ruler can not just make a quick decision and put to act. The effects can cause serious damage to the comunity. It takes several sequences to pass a decision in order to verify if the decision is logical or not.

This why I love Anceint Rome, a Republic, and Jesus.

Ah, but that's where a) the benevolent part comes in, and b) the open channels of communication. At the end of the day, sure, the dictator has final say. I'd like to add that such a dictator would also need to be well-educated and naturally intelligent, but some folk might be put off by that.

 

[BlueMage]

Where is the line between being philosophical and just sounding like a snob?

There's a line?

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?

The problem with this question, I think, is that evil is subjective.

Except, Evil isn't subjective. Nor is Good. Both are fairly fundamental absolutes.

Now, before you go off about that, please consider - just because you can't measure something accurately does not mean it doesn't exist, nor that it has no relevance (yes religious people, I've left an opening for you)

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Where is the line between being philosophical and just sounding like a snob?

There's a line?

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?

The problem with this question, I think, is that evil is subjective.

OK, but even given an evil that is subjective rather than absolute, does a person have to know what they are doing is evil for it to be genuinely evil, or is simply perpetuating a condition of evil, by ignorance or laziness, enough to be evil in and of itself?

 

[Copter400]

OK, but even given an evil that is subjective rather than absolute, does a person have to know what they are doing is evil for it to be genuinely evil, or is simply perpetuating a condition of evil, by ignorance or laziness, enough to be evil in and of itself?

Hurm. I need to purchase a thinking hat.

I'd say a person knowing that what they're doing is evil and continuing to perpetuate it is undoubtedly evil, and that a person who had no idea of the evil they were doing is not really that evil. However, this person can be just as evil as the former if they didn't know because they refused to know, probably based on the idea that it was none of their business.

Thank you very much, Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Madshaw]

Someone mentioned shrodingers cat earlier, a cat in a box with poison that will eventually go off and kill it, but we don't know when the poison will go off, we have to look to see if this cat is dead yet. But before we look we must assume that the cat is both alive and dead simutaniously. basically saying that everything you do not know must be both true and untrue, until you pove it to be either trueor untrue.
So lets ask the question of who studies philosophy, and apply it to the theory of shrodingers cat, there are 6 or 7 billion people on the planet who may or may not be philosophers, I don't know if they are or are not, therefor i must assume that they both are and are not, and because of this i can state that philosophy must absolutly piss easy if so many people are so good at it.

(just so you know, no I'm not taking this seriously)

 

[Lullabye]

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?

enjoy the show.

 

[Di22y]

Just because I cant prove it to you doesn't mean I don't exist. Give me a reason as to why I should attempt to prove my existance, as far as I'm concerned it's mine!

 

[orifice]

I don't exist?
err....
I would argue back but the persistent self doubt which defines me is holding me back!
saying that though not existing would explain a lot, and justify my self doubt. maybe your right, youve cleared up my doubt! I just hope this doesn't cause me to disappear in a puff of lo

 

[BlueMage]

Someone mentioned shrodingers cat earlier, a cat in a box with poison that will eventually go off and kill it, but we don't know when the poison will go off, we have to look to see if this cat is dead yet. But before we look we must assume that the cat is both alive and dead simutaniously. basically saying that everything you do not know must be both true and untrue, until you pove it to be either trueor untrue.
So lets ask the question of who studies philosophy, and apply it to the theory of shrodingers cat, there are 6 or 7 billion people on the planet who may or may not be philosophers, I don't know if they are or are not, therefor i must assume that they both are and are not, and because of this i can state that philosophy must absolutly piss easy if so many people are so good at it.

(just so you know, no I'm not taking this seriously)

Actually, not so much that you must assume it to be both true and untrue, but more neither true nor untrue. It is what it is - an unknown. You don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, and so you must accept that it exists in an unknown (but definable) state.

 

[RedDiablo]

Are ethics Subjective or Objective?