Young People are Fascinating!

Off Topic
487

[quote]kroby wrote:
Existential relativism. A philosophy in which I subscribe. We exist as only related to another in this reality. Reality is defined through our senses. Morality is defined by each individual as a set of proscribed actions in which the total set of individuals agree upon.

You see the inherent vagaries.

There are small cultures that believe in cannibalism. It is a part of their faith-based system where the initiated either take on the qualities of the eaten, or assume dominance over said victim. Found, this practice is ritual and doen with zeal. Do the involved find the practice immoral? I would venture to say not. To us, here in this time, we would disagree. One should not assume a superior position, when one has not lived the life they are judging. “It’s all relative.”

Now, I’m not saying we have to be Nazi to be able to judge their actions. Their society had the same values we share today, across most of the world.

But HH speaks of morals as if they are a part of human genetic code. Inherent in the human species; this is not so. If this was the case, we’d all be living in Nirvana, Eden, Tanelorn… In other words, free of a need for rules and laws, as they’d be instilled in us, and us unable to resist as it’d be unnatural, impossible to change the (genetic) code that determines (rules) our actions.

A perfect lawless system. Now that’s a thing to wish for. One questions whether that would be worth living, though. To push the boundaries seems to be (gulp) a human condition, perhaps genetic predisposition?

Again, vague.

I hope I executed a reason to be wary of absolutes. There can always be an exception to a rule, given favorable conditions.

I have yet to come to any reasonable exception to the Theory of Relativity, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking about breaking it![/quote]

The theory of relativity fails to explain the phenamena of large gravitation in galaxies with only a fraction of the matter that can be observed in the electro-magnetic spectrum.
These phenomena will never be explained through observational physical qualities. They can only be described in abstract physics(aka string theory). As Carl Sagan would say, we can only observe the “shadows” of entities outside of three dimensions.

You can’t percieve a 4-dimensional cube, but you can percieve it’s shadow in three dimesions.

488

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, it does suck to get old. But the alternative is worse!! :slight_smile:

And hey, I’m only 51! I believe 20 years older, but 30?[/quote]

489

How are words formed? Let’s look at the word ‘table’. We’ve all seen different individual tables but have you ever seen just ‘table’? No. All humans look for similarities and differences in what they observe; when they see a common property and that property is significant enough to define the object, we attach a name to that object and use that name for all other objects having the same defining characteristic.

Are there any other humans on this planet who do not go about forming concepts in this manner? (I’m asking this because I do not know; its not a trick.)

If all humans form concepts in this manner, then we are essentially the same.

HH

490

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
The theory of relativity fails to explain the phenamena of large gravitation in galaxies with only a fraction of the matter that can be observed in the electro-magnetic spectrum.
These phenomena will never be explained through observational physical qualities. They can only be described in abstract physics(aka string theory). As Carl Sagan would say, we can only observe the “shadows” of entities outside of three dimensions.

You can’t percieve a 4-dimensional cube, but you can percieve it’s shadow in three dimesions. [/quote]

Brilliant. Ever since I heard of string theory, I’ve been excited about potential explorations of it’s applications when harnessed.

491

[quote]Kliplemet wrote:
Someday, anime will bore him. What then…?
there’s always the super adventure club

[/quote]

The thread has changed, Klip, and you’re late. We are now trying to figure out if moral laws are universal or if they are personally unique. If the last, then what you’re doing is perfectly fine and I have no basis upon which to criticize you. If they are universal, then what you’re doing is irrational and you should stop (because irrationality leads to dissolution).

Are you caught up now? HH

492

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nope.

Your concept of morality, as being relative to a culture, is incorrect. Morality is an absolute science. Let me explain:

Every living thing on this planet has characteristics. If one of these defines that thing, we assign a name to that property and use it to distinguish it from all others. For ex, when I say ‘wolf’, you know what I mean. This concept also implies the other MINOR properties, such as 4 legs and so forth.

Humans have the distinguishing characteristic of rationality (Aristotle). We are the being that thinks using concepts. We form those concepts using reason, hence the term ‘rational animal’.

What is GOOD and MORAL is relative to what the being is. Man has a particular nature; what is good is what enhances or preserves that nature AS A RATIONAL BEING. Is productive work good? Yes. Is thievery evil? Yes. Morality is founded and dependent upon human nature. Every human on the globe is a rational animal — you were born that way.

Therefore, to make morality ‘relative’ to a culture is an abnegation of morality. It makes customs and mores the cause and not the effect. Suppose you were a British officer in 19th century India. You see a woman about to be burned alive on her husband’s funeral pyre. What makes you stop this abomination is your morality.

Moral relativism (no insult intended) was actually very important to the Nazis. Since they did not recognize Jews (etc) as human, they committed atrocities on a continental scale. Their error in epistemology/metaphysics led to an erroneous moral relativism — just like we have today.

HH[/quote]

I wonder if Ayn Rand is more annoyed at the fact that you blatantly plagorized her work here, or at the fact that she is considered a third-rate philosopher by anyone whose work is taken seriously.

493

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Although this may be hard for some of us to accept, an extensive examination of this avatar photo has been performed, and it has been determined that “Headhunter” is, in fact, Chuck Norris.

Be advised.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Hmmm. Are you sure? His name tag says “Kwon”.

494

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nope.

Your concept of morality, as being relative to a culture, is incorrect. Morality is an absolute science. Let me explain:

Every living thing on this planet has characteristics. If one of these defines that thing, we assign a name to that property and use it to distinguish it from all others. For ex, when I say ‘wolf’, you know what I mean. This concept also implies the other MINOR properties, such as 4 legs and so forth.

Humans have the distinguishing characteristic of rationality (Aristotle). We are the being that thinks using concepts. We form those concepts using reason, hence the term ‘rational animal’.

What is GOOD and MORAL is relative to what the being is. Man has a particular nature; what is good is what enhances or preserves that nature AS A RATIONAL BEING. Is productive work good? Yes. Is thievery evil? Yes. Morality is founded and dependent upon human nature. Every human on the globe is a rational animal — you were born that way.

Therefore, to make morality ‘relative’ to a culture is an abnegation of morality. It makes customs and mores the cause and not the effect. Suppose you were a British officer in 19th century India. You see a woman about to be burned alive on her husband’s funeral pyre. What makes you stop this abomination is your morality.

Moral relativism (no insult intended) was actually very important to the Nazis. Since they did not recognize Jews (etc) as human, they committed atrocities on a continental scale. Their error in epistemology/metaphysics led to an erroneous moral relativism — just like we have today.

HH

I wonder if Ayn Rand is more annoyed at the fact that you blatantly plagorized her work here, or at the fact that she is considered a third-rate philosopher by anyone whose work is taken seriously.[/quote]

Anthony,

I’ve repeatedly said in other threads and earlier in this one, that I’m an avid follower of Objectivism. I never pretended or plagarized anything. You didn’t do your homework on this accusation.

Now, why do you call Ms. Rand a ‘third-rate philosopher’? Don’t give me someone else’s opinion — give your own, with thoughts and reasons of how you came to this conclusion. What is it about the above that you find objectionable?

Headhunter

P.S. Your pitbull is a beautiful animal. Always loved the breed.

495

[quote] Anthony Roberts wrote:

you blatantly plagorized her work

Headhunter wrote:

I never pretended or plagarized anything.

[/quote]

Gentlemen, gentlemen.

If we are to throw around this talk of plagiarism, shall we at least spell the word correctly?

It’s only rational. :stuck_out_tongue:

496

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Although this may be hard for some of us to accept, an extensive examination of this avatar photo has been performed, and it has been determined that “Headhunter” is, in fact, Chuck Norris.

Be advised.

:slight_smile:

Hmmm. Are you sure? His name tag says “Kwon”.
[/quote]

“Kwon” is Korean for “fist”. This is obviously in reference to his appearance in Fists of Fury, where he pretends to lose to some skinny Chinese guy.

(EDIT: yeah, yeah. I know. It was Return of the Dragon, not Fists of Fury. Sue me.)

497

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“Kwon” is Korean for “fist”. This is obviously in reference to his appearance in Fists of Fury, where he pretends to lose to some skinny Chinese guy.
[/quote]

Of course not. It is obviously in reference to his preference for brachioproctic eroticism.

498

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
“Kwon” is Korean for “fist”. This is obviously in reference to his appearance in Fists of Fury, where he pretends to lose to some skinny Chinese guy.

Of course not. It is obviously in reference to his preference for brachioproctic eroticism.
[/quote]

Hahahahahahaha!

Well, that would still count as Fists of Fury.

499

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
I wonder if Ayn Rand is more annoyed at the fact that you blatantly plagorized her work here, or at the fact that she is considered a third-rate philosopher by anyone whose work is taken seriously.[/quote]

Ayn Rand wasn’t the first to logically determine that morality is objective. Plato seems to have been the first thorough philosopher to tackle that problem.

Leo Strauss revived that study years before Rand…

500

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
“Kwon” is Korean for “fist”. This is obviously in reference to his appearance in Fists of Fury, where he pretends to lose to some skinny Chinese guy.

Of course not. It is obviously in reference to his preference for brachioproctic eroticism.
[/quote]

Nah, it means that there’s a part on my hand, a certain finger, and that I’m ‘giving’ that to you, Pookie.

C’mon, Pook, fire up that massive intellect of yours and contribute something to the discussion. As a defrocked priest, you should have lots to contribute.

HH

PS: You know I’m just kidding, right Pooks? Me and you’se bros, right Pook? Right? :slight_smile:

501

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I wonder if Ayn Rand is more annoyed at the fact that you blatantly plagorized her work here, or at the fact that she is considered a third-rate philosopher by anyone whose work is taken seriously.

Ayn Rand wasn’t the first to logically determine that morality is objective. Plato seems to have been the first thorough philosopher to tackle that problem.

Leo Strauss revived that study years before Rand…[/quote]

To which of his books/essays are you referencing?

HH

502

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To which of his books/essays are you referencing?
[/quote]

All of them?

His Heidegger and Existentialism talk (which was transcribed for, I believe, Interpretation magazine) is an interesting, if dense, analysis of the problems inherent in modern philosophy.

“The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism” is also a good book. I don’t know how familiar you are with Strauss; if you don’t know from him, you might want to start “What is political philosophy” and “What is Liberal Education.”

503

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To which of his books/essays are you referencing?

All of them?

His Heidegger and Existentialism talk (which was transcribed for, I believe, Interpretation magazine) is an interesting, if dense, analysis of the problems inherent in modern philosophy.

“The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism” is also a good book. I don’t know how familiar you are with Strauss; if you don’t know from him, you might want to start “What is political philosophy” and “What is Liberal Education.”[/quote]

I’d read Heidegger and Neitszche, of course, but have not read Strauss.

Now, please don’t take this the wrong way, but herein lies the brilliance of Rand. What good is a philosophy if no one knows about it? Very few people have ever heard of Strauss or read his work. IMO, a philosophy that doesn’t change the world, that just sits on shelves in obscure libraries, is pointless.

While many laugh at her, her ideas are influencing the world. Look at Alan Greenspan, a devotee, and you’ll see her impact on the world, for example.

One of her books is entitled: Philosophy — Who Needs It? . The answer, of course, is ALL OF US. So, while Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Popper, and a whole litany of brilliant men write tomes that gather dust, her work is DOING SOMETHING.

This is one of the reasons I rank her as one of the greatest philosophers ever. Born in Russia, she really is an American — the kind of person who believes: “Get off your ass and actually DO SOMETHING to change the world.”

Her work will quite possibly create a whole new world.

HH

504

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nah, it means that there’s a part on my hand, a certain finger, and that I’m ‘giving’ that to you, Pookie.[/quote]

Thumbs up?

My intellectual reputation is quite overrated.

Hardly a minute goes by when I don’t think of you. Or not.

505

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I wonder if Ayn Rand is more annoyed at the fact that you blatantly plagorized her work here, or at the fact that she is considered a third-rate philosopher by anyone whose work is taken seriously.

Ayn Rand wasn’t the first to logically determine that morality is objective. Plato seems to have been the first thorough philosopher to tackle that problem.

Leo Strauss revived that study years before Rand…

All of them?

His Heidegger and Existentialism talk (which was transcribed for, I believe, Interpretation magazine) is an interesting, if dense, analysis of the problems inherent in modern philosophy.

“The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism” is also a good book. I don’t know how familiar you are with Strauss; if you don’t know from him, you might want to start “What is political philosophy” and “What is Liberal Education.”
[/quote]

To this I would add that Rand was neither the first, nor the best, in any of the areas which she dabbled (Ethics, Epistemology, etc…).

She’s not even rated as second, or third best, in any of those areas.

In addition, to HH, my comments on plagorizing her work stand…just because you have stated at some point to be a follower of her ideas doesn’t give the wholesale right to you for all eternity to quote her every thought and not give credit.

I happen to think Cogito ergo Sum and I also think that what does not kill us makes us stronger, but I don’t ever say those things without referencing Descartes and Nietzche.

506

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:

To this I would add that Rand was neither the first, nor the best, in any of the areas which she dabbled (Ethics, Epistemology, etc…).

She’s not even rated as second, or third best, in any of those areas.

In addition, to HH, my comments on plagorizing her work stand…just because you have stated at some point to be a follower of her ideas doesn’t give the wholesale right to you for all eternity to quote her every thought and not give credit.

I happen to think Cogito ergo Sum and I also think that what does not kill us makes us stronger, but I don’t ever say those things without referencing Descartes and Nietzche.

[/quote]

Bullshit. Plain and simple. I can see you in the gym, “Hey guys, that which doesn’t break my back makes me stronger! ((which is the proper quote)) And a guy named Nietzsche said that!” You’re always sure to say that…lmao!

Does DNP destroy brain cells? Man, no wonder Rainjack ripped you a new one. Spitting out stupid accusations… and I thought you were intelligent.

GTFOH!

HH