More Philosophy Questions!

Off Topic
61

[quote]dude-dilly squat wrote:
pat36 wrote:
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.

Why is it like basing currency on weather?

I dont get the similie.

What about this one:

Moral relativsim is like basing the value of the sails on your boat based on the weather?

“That’s a great sail if its not windy.”

[/quote]

Just a different way of saying the samething. It’s just an analogy and based on your rephrasing you understood it which served my purpose. The idea is that we are basing notions that are more or less concrete (sail or currency) on a variable that constantly fluctuates (weather or social paradigms).

62

[quote]If we were to ever again have Philosophers, and the Great Conversation were to be reinvigorated, I think you would be correct. Alternatively, if we are able to learn from the greatest minds, putting aside the arrogant belief that we know “more” than those who came before us, we could.
[/quote]

The “Great Conversation” has never ended you just got to know where to look.

63

[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now.

Interesting. Would you have an example?
[/quote]

Building megalomaniacal stone buildings without the aid of machines. Just doing anything without the aid of machines, really.

64

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Part of the problem, of course, is that what they knew that we don’t is, by definition, obscure.[/quote]

Yes, but we still could have some idea of what it was. I just couldn’t think of anything where ancients would be “more advanced” than we are, unless it’s particular to their culture or language at the time.

For example, the ancient Greeks obviously knew better than we do what ancient Greek language sounded like. That’s not particularly useful knowledge, though.

Isn’t it quite unlikely that whatever mathematical thought that language expressed has long since been re-expressed by other mathematicians? Mathematics has come a long way since Plato.

I think the point might be to learn what’s already been done. No point in reinventing the wheel, right? Or, to put it another way, if you’re going to stand on the shoulder of giants, you need to know where those shoulders are before you step on them.

65

[quote]karva wrote:
Building megalomaniacal stone buildings without the aid of machines. Just doing anything without the aid of machines, really.[/quote]

That’s not really knowledge we don’t have. There’s simply no point in doing it by hand, over a period of decades when you can do it for a fraction of the cost and time by using machines.

I remember seeing a documentary where an engineer and his team of about 30 people moved and raised another Easter Island statue, using nothing but levers and ropes that hade been made from local materials. It took some time, but it certainly wasn’t that difficult.

I don’t think that’s actually knowledge we’ve lost. It simply been superseded by better techniques and technology.

Building a boat that can house the entire animal kingdom, on the other hand… :slight_smile:

66

[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t think that’s actually knowledge we’ve lost. It simply been superseded by better techniques and technology.
[/quote]

Exactly, and that’s why that knowledge has been lost. We don’t need it but it’s knowledge never the less. Ask any archeologist. The engineer you mention succeeded in reconstructing the procedure, but I think that he failed to make the right prayers. It looks like a real Eastern island statue, but it isn’t, because the ritual is missing. You know, the young virgins and stuff like that, to make the connection with the ancestors. Those Eastern islanders knew why they went through all the trouble, we don’t, and even when we do, we don’t understand it. That’s my opinion.

67

[quote]karva wrote:
the ritual is missing. You know, the young virgins and stuff like that, to make the connection with the ancestors. Those Eastern islanders knew why they went through all the trouble, we don’t, and even when we do, we don’t understand it. That’s my opinion.[/quote]

Ok, I’ll grant you cultural customs of the time. Not exactly the most useful kind of knowledge, but still interesting. I was thinking more about applicable knowledge. Something like the secret to making a Stradivarius violin, or similar.

68

[quote]pookie wrote:
Not exactly the most useful kind of knowledge, but still interesting. I was thinking more about applicable knowledge. Something like the secret to making a Stradivarius violin, or similar.
[/quote]

I don’t believe that there were lost civilizations who possessed advanced technology, so there would be very few examples of such lost art. I’m speaking from a Philosophical/ethical standpoint. Perhaps it’s overstating things to say they knew things we don’t “know,” if you’re going to take it collectively… perhaps it is better to simply say that the classical and medieval Philosophers have something to teach us that we are not provided elsewhere in contemporary culture.

69

Some VERY thought-provoking ideas being posted here! This is what I was looking for!

Being a math guy, I still like the deductive type of philosophy, as in: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

70

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t believe that there were lost civilizations who possessed advanced technology, so there would be very few examples of such lost art. I’m speaking from a Philosophical/ethical standpoint. Perhaps it’s overstating things to say they knew things we don’t “know,” if you’re going to take it collectively… perhaps it is better to simply say that the classical and medieval Philosophers have something to teach us that we are not provided elsewhere in contemporary culture.[/quote]

If it’s so all fired important, what is it doing in the trash bin?

I think you are doing what most people do, though I think you warned about it earlier in this thread. You are putting history, or historic notions, on a pedestal simply because of their age.

We didn’t lose it. We moved on. If we need to, we’ll go back to it.

71

[quote]pat36 wrote:
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.
[/quote]

Anyway, to go back a bit, would you mind pointing to your ABSOLUTE definition of right and wrong so we can all stop pondering what it might be?

Good luck!

72

[quote]vroom wrote:

If it’s so all fired important, what is it doing in the trash bin?[/quote]

If that be the case - and I personally don’t think it is - why assume that Society’s choice to throw such learning in the trash bin was reflexively a good idea?

I think you fall into the category mentioned earlier about presupposing Progress entirely too quickly. Even if said Ancient Wisdom has been discarded, that doesn’t mean that society’s choice in getting rid of it was automatically a Good Idea.

73

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Perhaps it is better to simply say that the classical and medieval Philosophers have something to teach us that we are not provided elsewhere in contemporary culture.[/quote]

One thing to take into account, though, is that we’ve long since passed the time where it was possible for a man to learn almost everything that was known in his time. Somewhere in the late 1800’s I’d say.

As we amass more and more knowledge, it simply becomes impossible to learn it all. Like it or not, we have to settle for a broad understanding of “general knowledge” and specialize in a particular field.

What classical philosophers taught is not so much lost or forgotten, as much as ignored in favor of other knowledge. For anyone who’s interested, most of their works are now more easily accessible than ever before in history, thanks to the internet.

Whether people should spend more time reading Plato and Aristotle rather than playing video games or chatting on internet forums is another question…

74

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Well put.[/quote]

And more on relativism, channeling Plato:

  1. It can’t distinguish between truth and falsehood. If each individual is afforded his due credit of what ‘right’ is, there is no ‘wrong’, which leads to absurd results.

  2. Relativism eats itself. It is self-refuting. Saying that there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth in and of itself. If someone believes in relativism and I don’t, they are going to tell me “you’re wrong and I am right” - which completely negates their first sentiment that there is no measurable wrong or right. And finally, if I say “there is no such thing as relativism”, by its own tenets relativism must admit that those who think relativism is false are correct.

The problem, I believe, is that many overstate what can be Truth. Not every decision or thought entails having as its parent an Absolute Truth. Whether or not to eat pop tarts in the morning has no Absolute Truth hovering over it waiting to be discovered - i.e., there is no ‘right’ answer on some questions.

But it need not suffer from overreach. Many relativists say “well, since there are some questions that don’t have ‘right’ answers, likely that means that very few or none do”. And the answer there is just because we aren’t great at deciphering them doesn’t mean that they are non-existent. That we still argue what the Right Answers are on those selected questions has no bearing on the actual existence of the Right Answers.

Much of modern relativism - as espoused by the current believers - comes from the Academic Left who wanted to endorse and present relativism as a way to combat perceived imperialism. After all, they argued that if no one can claim the monopoly on the Right Answers, going in and telling someone else they are living wrong (and doing something about it through imperialism) could not be morally supported or sustained - after all, other societies had the ‘right’ to come to different conclusions, and since one wasn’t better than another, the Imperialist acted immorally when he acted on his colonial ambitions.

A ridiculous notion of course, as stated above - the Academic Left pushing this completely contradicted itself. After all, they were talking out of two mouths: on one hand, they said “there are no Right Answers” - on the other, they said “there is a universal moral imperative to respect cultures and not act imperially toward them.” Completely refuting theories, but they are still used today by people who argue againt Imperlialism.

If you say “you have no right to go in and tell people what to do” you are endorsing something you believe to be a universal command not just applicable to yourself, but everyone else as well, and therefore it must be a Truth that transcends relativistic principles.

Of course, a better answer is that there are Right Answers, but even if you are in possession of some of them, one of the Right Answers is that you leave people to do what they choose as a moral imperative. Though I think there is a natural human instinct to ‘not leave well enough alone’ when you think you are right, there is nothing conceptually axiomatic about thinking you have the Right Answers and having the obligation to use your power to get others to the Right Answers without their request. Simply allowing others to live with the Wrong Answers unless they ask is a fair Right Answer, I believe.

Just some thoughts on relativism and the innate nature of its flaws, and the excuse to not only talk about Philosophy, but also an excuse to capitalize nouns in writing that you would ordinarily never do these days. :>

EDIT: to correct a sentence that made no sense.

75

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And more on relativism, channeling Plato:

  1. It can’t distinguish between truth and falsehood. If each individual is afforded his due credit of what ‘right’ is, there is no ‘wrong’, which leads to absurd results.

  2. Relativism eats itself. It is self-refuting. Saying that there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth in and of itself. If someone believes in relativism and I don’t, they are going to tell me “you’re wrong and I am right” - which completely negates their first sentiment that there is no measurable wrong or right.
    [/quote]

You are absolutely correct, but I fail to see the problem. I don’t see in relativism a philosophy, that tries to convey The Truth. It’s a tool. A useful and important tool. A way to take my goggles off. It mimics innocence. If I’m about to judge something, I put my goggles back on.

76

[quote]vroom wrote:
pat36 wrote:
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.

Anyway, to go back a bit, would you mind pointing to your ABSOLUTE definition of right and wrong so we can all stop pondering what it might be?

Good luck![/quote]

What about anything I said gave you the impression that I claimed to know the answer to that question?
I merely pointed out that theories in ethical philosophy seek to answer that question by defining correct or moral behavior. When I find the absolute answer, I will be sure and let you know.

77

Here’s my pragmatic way of defining Good and Evil:

Evil: Unnecessary pain, be it physical pain or mental anguish or anxiousness. The “unnecessary” part is important. Killing a cow to eat is ok; killing it for fun is not. Killing it through torture when you can do it quickly is also “evil” for the same reason.

Good: Not Evil. Thank you, George Boole. The general rule being that the most good comes from reducing or preventing evil for the most people.

There are, of course, a few difficult edge cases; but it’s generally not too bad at evaluating whether a specific action should be considered “right” or “wrong”.

Another useful tool to judge if an action is right or wrong, is to extend that action to the entire population. What happens if everyone does what you’re doing? Is it workable? In other words, does it end up causing unnecessary pain or anguish to people?

It’s simple and effective. It’s simplicity also makes it easy to explain to young children.

Thoughts?

78

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If that be the case - and I personally don’t think it is - why assume that Society’s choice to throw such learning in the trash bin was reflexively a good idea?

I think you fall into the category mentioned earlier about presupposing Progress entirely too quickly. Even if said Ancient Wisdom has been discarded, that doesn’t mean that society’s choice in getting rid of it was automatically a Good Idea.[/quote]

What in the hell are you trying to argue with?

Are you suggesting that they were so advanced in the past that we could not come up with what they had if we were to focus on it?

Their information is like a box I have in the closet. It’s been there since I moved to this address and I don’t even know what is in it anymore.

Obviously, it’s pretty damned significant to my life…

I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it’s happened. Often things get put away and forgotten about because they no longer actively useful.

79

Pookie,

Sounds pretty similar to what I was talking about several pages back… where “bad” is represented by things that harm us.

–

I don’t know, I find the critiques to relativism to be absurd. Believing you have a wider scope of understanding to make your judgement allows you to have a different opinion than another and to view it as right, while the other person is wrong.

I don’t see any need for relativism to admit that opposing answers are both right, but that instead both answers may appear right to those making the decisions or judgment.

That is a huge facking difference… and is not some trivial paradox allowing you to dismiss the whole notion.

Heck, it sounds like relativism has entered the political arena at some point… and I suspect it has clashed with the religious right in the past, so I’d imagine a fair amount of bullshit critique has been generated.

For example. Is it “good” to kill? Well, the answer obviously depends doesn’t it? We’re killing over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many people judge that to be “good” while others judge it “bad”.

Most people understand that in general killing is “bad” but that there are exceptions to this. For example, many will rally behind corporal punishment for criminals. Suddenly the “rule” changes. Wow, relativism in action, making a decision based on the issues involved as you see them.

That’s quite the paradox itself isn’t it? Apparently relativism is a failed paradox, yet we all apply it every day in our lives every time we make a “judgment” based on our own thoughts, or every time we consider the issues involved to make a moral decision.

Not one of us has an absolute truth to refer to… so how on earth do we ever make value decisions?

Oh the horror!

80

[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie,

Sounds pretty similar to what I was talking about several pages back… where “bad” is represented by things that harm us.[/quote]

Hmmm. I might have skipped that, for some reason…

It’s not quite that simplistic though. A vaccine will harm you, but the end result is that you’re less likely to get seriously ill or even die from some disease. So that harm is not evil or wrong.

I also think you need intent somewhere. An avalanche destroying your house will no doubt cause you anguish, or pain if you’re inside and happen to survive; but the avalanche itself is not evil… it simply is. If I run a bulldozer through your house (you still in Kingston?) the end result is the same, although this time Evil Pookie is at work.

Just saying harm = evil is not a sufficient definition.