[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
True and false.
Right and wrong.
Good and bad.
Fact and fiction.
Semantics… All of which is a dualism, a preconceived moral bias based on cultural ideals of the time.
I believe there is absolutely no intrinsic moral…
So yes, everything is permitted if you are willing to live with the consequences of your actions.
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
By your statement, your statement is false.
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
True and false.
Right and wrong.
Good and bad.
Fact and fiction.
Semantics… All of which is a dualism, a preconceived moral bias based on cultural ideals of the time.
I believe there is absolutely no intrinsic moral…
So yes, everything is permitted if you are willing to live with the consequences of your actions.
[/quote]
That’s not semantics, what can be true can be bad, and what can be good can be fiction, and what is fact can be bad, and what can be bad can be false.
So you believe there is no objective morals?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
By your statement, your statement is false.[/quote]
And yet by yours it is true.
Brother Chris, good points. What’s your philosophical background?
As far as the examples by Alexus, I like what you said. It’s true that a pen doesn’t exist “a priori” and therefore demands humans. Good point.
One question for you guys: When you’re about to make a decision on something, do you think first, or do you just act? This was a question posed to my ethics class. I must admit, I usually just act - hardly ever weighing the pros and cons. I’d make a bad utilitarian. But then again, my experiences and beliefs are part of me, and therefore my “just act” mechanism is sort of ‘thought out’… Just an interesting thing my professor brought up, wanted to hear what you guys thought.
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
True and false.
Right and wrong.
Good and bad.
Fact and fiction.
Semantics… All of which is a dualism, a preconceived moral bias based on cultural ideals of the time.[/quote]
Can you expand on why you state that this is dualism?
[quote]nik133 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
By your statement, your statement is false.[/quote]
And yet by yours it is true.[/quote]
That is not logical. The premise is your statement, mine is not just a premise, but a conclusion.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Brother Chris, good points. What’s your philosophical background?
[/quote]
Thanks, do you mean like what I have studied or philosophical school do I adhere to?
[quote]
As far as the examples by Alexus, I like what you said. It’s true that a pen doesn’t exist “a priori” and therefore demands humans. Good point.
One question for you guys: When you’re about to make a decision on something, do you think first, or do you just act? This was a question posed to my ethics class. I must admit, I usually just act - hardly ever weighing the pros and cons. I’d make a bad utilitarian. But then again, my experiences and beliefs are part of me, and therefore my “just act” mechanism is sort of ‘thought out’… Just an interesting thing my professor brought up, wanted to hear what you guys thought. [/quote]
Well, I am not a utilitarian. I find extremely bad logical and actual problems with utilitarianism in and of itself. Moreover, to your question…it matters how frequent the event occurs and whether I have the virtue to not be tempted yet. Example, pornography. When I first started to build my virtues, I had to take it slow, had to consciously say no don’t look at porn. Then it turned into a point where I had to think about it, but it was a quick yes almost every time, then it turned into a point where it never crossed my mind.
I think that every man should not only focus some amount of effort on the physical body, but on the four cardinal virtues*, as well. This goes with the three religious virtues, I realize that some people are not religious, but the four cardinal should be everyone’s staples.
Brother Chris,
I definitely don’t follow ‘organized religion,’ but I see a lot of good principles that can apply to all. I try to look for similarities rather than differences…things that work, etc…I also don’t judge others based on their religious beliefs (except for abrasive types like the Westboroughs or whatever).
What would you say to the post I had earlier? It was along the lines of: Who is more moral/ethical? The person who sees a bag of chips, wants the chips, has no money, wants to steal them, but consciously fights the urge? Or the man who sees the chips, realizes he has no money, and the thought of theft doesn’t even cross his mind?
I think the person who doesn’t even consider theft is more ethical, because if theft isn’t in your constitution, then you’re probably a “more” ethical person. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
And yes - I was curious about your formal education. I’ve seen you around various forums. Are you very religious? What religion, etc…
Good to have you in this thread!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.[/quote]
By your statement, your statement is false.[/quote]
And yet by yours it is true.[/quote]
That is not logical. The premise is your statement, mine is not just a premise, but a conclusion.[/quote]
Everything is relative, logical to you may not be logical to others. Your truth is just as true as mine, nothing is true and everything is permitted, consciousness is all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I agree with DD. 2+2=4 is a man made symbolic representation of ideas. Math doesn’t exist. You can’t walk around and find a 2+2 in nature. [/quote]
Wow…denying reality. Go back to second grade…you have two apples and you had two apples, how many apples do you have? Do you have 3, 4, or 5…or are apples symbolic representation of ideas, and Apples do not exist, too?[/quote]
I think you missed the point. 2 Quarks + 2 anti-quarks = 0.
Not to mention there is no “addition” in nature. What does that mean to add 2 apples to to apples? Did you set them close to each other?
In vector notation 2+2 is anywhere from 0 to 4. It all depends on the rules used.
Not to mention Apples aren’t a sufficient representation of the idea of an integer. 4 apples doesn’t really tell you anything about what you have. Is a dehydrated apple = to a nice ripe one. What if one was a granny smith and the others weren’t? 1 apple doesn’t = another apple ever. 2 apples can never be equivalent in the way that is meant in your by referring to them like you did in your math problem because apples aren’t integers. They do not fulfill the requirement of an integer except in the man made agreed upon rule/distinction that they are all apples.
Simple math like that doesn’t exist in nature.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Brother Chris,
I definitely don’t follow ‘organized religion,’ but I see a lot of good principles that can apply to all. I try to look for similarities rather than differences…things that work, etc…I also don’t judge others based on their religious beliefs (except for abrasive types like the Westboroughs or whatever).
What would you say to the post I had earlier? It was along the lines of: Who is more moral/ethical? The person who sees a bag of chips, wants the chips, has no money, wants to steal them, but consciously fights the urge? Or the man who sees the chips, realizes he has no money, and the thought of theft doesn’t even cross his mind? [/quote]
Good question. I’d like to first point out that ethics and morals are not always the same thing. Example, ethically in business I would not be allowed to talk to a employee from another company and ask him how much he is making and offer him more. Is it morally wrong to do that? No, but for some reason it is unethical for business to do that to other company’s employees.
But, I digress. I’m not sure if I can say by this which one of them is morally superior in this situation. However, I can say that the latter is more virtuous and it would seem that the same is true morally speaking.
[quote]
I think the person who doesn’t even consider theft is more ethical, because if theft isn’t in your constitution, then you’re probably a “more” ethical person. I’d be interested in your thoughts. [/quote]
If you switch ethics with moral then yes. If an accountant follows the ethics of the International Ethics Standard Board for Accountants, we could say that he is ethical if he just follows the ethics with no basis really on other factors like temptation. However, if he isn’t tempted to break those ethics, I would believe that he is more moral than a man that is tempted to break those ethics.
[quote]
And yes - I was curious about your formal education. I’ve seen you around various forums. Are you very religious? What religion, etc…
Good to have you in this thread![/quote]
My formal education consists of philosophy (ethics), theology (morals), rhetoric, psychology, finance, economics, marketing, and history. I, however, am finishing my degree in finance and economics and will likely go onto get my masters in business administration specifically in finance.
I suppose you could say I am religious, yes. As opposed to lapsed religious and I am Catholic.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I’m a philosophy major, and I actually enjoy reading philosophy…So, who are your favorite philosophers, topics of interest, ethical issues, morality, etc…
I’ll start: I like Kant and Nietzsche, especially Kant’s ethical ideals. I also think Nietzsche would’ve been a great lifting partner, his stuff always gets me pumped![/quote]
Nietzsche was hilarious…some of his ‘maxims & interludes’ are priceless. Not my favourite philosopher, though, certainly entertaining!
Generally speaking, I tend to be highly sceptical of most of the ‘merits’ of most western philosophy/philosophers, since it tends to resemble a rather a ridiculous, intellectual tug of war which ultimately no one is ever going to win. Great for intellectual ping-pong, not so great for furthering our understanding of the human condition & for seeking practical solutions.
That being said, their are certain ideas in expressed Greek philosophy (to cite just one example) which I believe have stood the test of time rather well.
i cant decide?
[quote]Kerley wrote:
i cant decide?[/quote]
I thought the age of consent was 14 in Ireland.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Kerley wrote:
i cant decide?[/quote]
I thought the age of consent was 14 in Ireland.[/quote]
Ancient & Medieval: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Duns Scotus
Modern: Descartes, Hume, Hobbes, Reid, Kant
Contemporary: Plantinga
[quote]dshroy wrote:
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I’m a philosophy major, and I actually enjoy reading philosophy…So, who are your favorite philosophers, topics of interest, ethical issues, morality, etc…
I’ll start: I like Kant and Nietzsche, especially Kant’s ethical ideals. I also think Nietzsche would’ve been a great lifting partner, his stuff always gets me pumped![/quote]
Hitler. Mussolini. Terrance McKenna.[/quote]
LOL!
OP: Nietzsche was a fucking dementia patient. Much of his ‘philosophy’ was train of thought drivel. He also took Shakespeare’s throw-away line ‘nothing is either good nor bad but thinking makes it so’ as a fucking philosophical concept worthy of deep exploration.
Philosophy? Start with Aristotle and Plato, end with Leo Strauss via Hegel, Hobbes and maybe a bit of Machiavelli. Don’t take ‘the Prince’ too seriously though. ‘Discourses on Livy’ is the important work.
NOTE: Plato’s Republic is interesting but little more than 4th Century Communism with child abuse and arranged marriages thrown in. Kant, Descartes, Spinosa, Locke, Hume, Rousseau etc, all good but don’t let them turn you into a fucking liberal.
I tend to be highly sceptical of most of the ‘merits’ of most western philosophy/philosophers, since it tends to resemble a rather a ridiculous, intellectual tug of war which ultimately no one is ever going to win. Great for intellectual ping-pong, not so great for furthering our understanding of the human condition
ARGH my post got ate. round 2…
I have a lot of empathy for this perspective.
I once heard someone say…
‘you start out interested in the meaning of life… then get sucked into an interest in the meaning of meaning… before you know it you are writing a PhD thesis in response to a footnote by Gareth Evans’ (a particularly obtuse / technical writer who works in the philosophy of language on meaning).
one doesn’t need to look much further than the state of epistemology (theory of knowledge) earlier this century beginning with Gettier… a more fruitless exercise could hardly be conceptualized…
(though it showed us that necessary and sufficient conditions are not forthcoming so we might want to make sure conceptual analysis of this variety isn’t the only tool in the philosophical toolbox)
on the other hand…
i do think that significant progress / advances have been made in analytic philosophy this century.
thinking particularly of advances in cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, computer science, and artificial intelligence. philosophers who take their projects to be fairly continuous with the natural sciences (such that they look to science for data and develop testable theories) have offered us a radically different conception of who and what we are and what our place in the universe is.
of course sometimes analytic philosophy is dismissive of those who see their projects as continuous with the natural sciences…
and sometimes the scientists are dismissive of those who engage in such high level theorizing…
but whatever.
think less. squat more.
[quote]alexus wrote:
I tend to be highly sceptical of most of the ‘merits’ of most western philosophy/philosophers, since it tends to resemble a rather a ridiculous, intellectual tug of war which ultimately no one is ever going to win. Great for intellectual ping-pong, not so great for furthering our understanding of the human condition
ARGH my post got ate. round 2…
I have a lot of empathy for this perspective.
I once heard someone say…
‘you start out interested in the meaning of life… then get sucked into an interest in the meaning of meaning… before you know it you are writing a PhD thesis in response to a footnote by Gareth Evans’ (a particularly obtuse / technical writer who works in the philosophy of language on meaning).
one doesn’t need to look much further than the state of epistemology (theory of knowledge) earlier this century beginning with Gettier… a more fruitless exercise could hardly be conceptualized…
(though it showed us that necessary and sufficient conditions are not forthcoming so we might want to make sure conceptual analysis of this variety isn’t the only tool in the philosophical toolbox)
on the other hand…
i do think that significant progress / advances have been made in analytic philosophy this century.
thinking particularly of advances in cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, computer science, and artificial intelligence. philosophers who take their projects to be fairly continuous with the natural sciences (such that they look to science for data and develop testable theories) have offered us a radically different conception of who and what we are and what our place in the universe is.
of course sometimes analytic philosophy is dismissive of those who see their projects as continuous with the natural sciences…
and sometimes the scientists are dismissive of those who engage in such high level theorizing…
but whatever.
think less. squat more.[/quote]
‘think less. squat more’.
I concur:)