WOW! OIS Commentary (spoilers for commentary) by heb

Quote:
Originally posted by THEREALME:
Just a LITTLE incoherent...

Don't worry about figuring stuff out. You've got plenty of time.

But, yes, OIS is one of my favorites, too.

B]

Ok it's now the morning after the night before and I'm a little bit worried by what I wrote last night. But thanks for the reply.

I'm annoyed because out of all the (I'm gonna go with hundreds of) useless books that my parents have aquired they don't have a single philosophy book. I'm off to the library later to see what I can track down on existentialism. But seeing as our local library is now mainly videos and dvds I'm not holding out much hope there either.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36 PM

NOOCYTE

Hey, Heb;

Don't you worry one little bit about being "incoherent" (I'm a big fan of stumbling across Truths in the midst of non-linear ramblings!). You are at a fine age for batting these ideas around (he said, sounding uncomfortably like the Wise Old Man archetype...).

A bit of advice: If you want to get into existentialism, I would (and do) recommend that you approach it through secondary sources first. Trying to read, say, Sartre without adequate preparation is apt to leave one pretzel-brained and drooling ([approximate quote] 'Being as being is always in question, in that its being implies a being other than itself...' yike.). Might be better to aproach through a good Intro To Philosophy text, get the lay of the land, then dive into the primary sources for depth and the formation of your own opinions.

Personally, I'd go to Amazon, do a search for Intro to Philosophy, read the reviews (editorial and reader), find one that looks promising...then go to half.com and order it on the cheap. that way, it's yours, and you can jot notes and comments to yourself in the margins. But that's just me.

That line from "Angel" is BRILLIANT!!!. That Joss: he Knows Things!

Good luck!!

And Keep Flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:

Good luck!!

Thanks!

I work in a book store so i might see what I can pick up.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 12:40 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I wish I could help you more. I went through what you are going through. I went to college and got a minor in philosophy... towards the end, I realized that anything, any philosophy can be broken down. Essentially, you can't rely on them. And while they are fun, you can get lost in them along the way if not focused on understanding their purpose. I would recommend that you read, for a lingering slap at most of them, Feyerabend's, "Against Method" Might want to preface it with "philosophical fragments" by Kierkegaard. Enjoy reading and feel free to shoot any questions my way. I love philosophy.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 2:44 AM

JEWEL

OiS was also my favorite commentary. I watched and listened the first time through and then immediately again. Joss is pretty amazing.

I can't actually say there was any one point in my life where I realized that I'm athiest. It was actually quite a long journey. But I do remember the first time I actually said it out loud.

I agree with Noocyte about reading secondary sources and/or introductory texts prior to diving into the big stuff. Your brain will thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:28 AM

I'm also an atheist/agnostic (either or both depending on which definition _you_ prefer. I self-identify as an atheist, but some people assume my stance is harder than it is by that label), and yeah, the commentary for OiS is great. A lot of what he said are ideas that've been rolling around in my head for a long time, but he's got a way of putting them better than I can, even to myself.

'If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do' is pretty good as philosophy-encapsulating lines go. Though, I still prefer the slightly more quixotic:

'We live as though life were as it should be, to show it what it can be.'

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:

'We live as though life were as it should be, to show it what it can be.'

I'd forgotton that one. Another fantastic quote. Thank you.

Thanks for all the recommendations everyone. I get my last exam out of the way a week Monday and then I might actually get around to doing some actual reading.

I really appreciate everyone's help.

Heb

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 5:41 AM

Ok my local library was useless and I haven’t been in work yet to order anything but then I realised in these modern times there has got to be the electronic equivalent of one of those ‘intro to..’ guides on the net. And sure enough I managed to track some stuff down. Amongst other things this is what I found:

Quote:

Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are simple:
• Mankind has free will.
• Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
• Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
• Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
• If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

...

This seems to make sense. However if we are made up of elementary particles all interacting and there is a grand unified theory maybe the choices we make are pre-determined or maybe parallel universes exist where we have made the alternate choice. How does this fit in with existentialism? I don’t know and we can’t really go around living our lives on the basis that we’re just a bunch of particles. These are just some initial ponderings as I merely begin to brush the surface of existentialism. I’ll see what more I can find out later when I’m not supposed to be revising.

Oh and I also managed to track down a copy of Sartre’s Nausea by the way. I’m finding it really interesting but I don’t know how much of it is going over my head.

Anyway back to the revision.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 5:41 AM

oops double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are simple:
• Mankind has free will.
• Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
• Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
• Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
• If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

...

This seems to make sense. However if we are made up of elementary particles all interacting and there is a grand unified theory maybe the choices we make are pre-determined or maybe parallel universes exist where we have made the alternate choice. How does this fit in with existentialism? I don’t know and we can’t really go around living our lives on the basis that we’re just a bunch of particles. These are just some initial ponderings as I merely begin to brush the surface of existentialism. I’ll see what more I can find out later when I’m not supposed to be revising.

I haven't studied the specifics of existentialism (other than to throw it around as a concept word whenever Big Damn Questions got tossed around on message boards), but I have picked up a thing or two on deep thought (on said message boards) and one is this - never fall for the 'elementary particle' pit.

Yes, you are made up of said particles. Yes, said particles have basic laws governing all their interactions. Yes, you could conceivably predict the motions of two or three (or a thou) using known physics. All true, and all misleading, and all intended to make you ignore the first factoid you listed there. People who seriously listen to that crap should just go get stoned, it'd save them time.

You are made of trillions of these damn things, interacting in a horrificly complex system with permutations of possibility that defy any standard model or unified theory. That's no small bit of magic. Or in Cap'n talk, that's not nothing.

From someone who spends way too much time mulling this garbage too....

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:25 AM

PIERSNICA

I'm a philosophy idiot (other than I know that I am an atheist of some stripe), but people keep telling me I'm an existentialist. Maybe that's why the show resonates... It's cool, though, that there are other like-minded fans.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:45 AM

Quote:

I haven't studied the specifics of existentialism (other than to throw it around as a concept word whenever Big Damn Questions got tossed around on message boards), but I have picked up a thing or two on deep thought (on said message boards) and one is this - never fall for the 'elementary particle' pit.

Yes, you are made up of said particles. Yes, said particles have basic laws governing all their interactions. Yes, you could conceivably predict the motions of two or three (or a thou) using known physics. All true, and all misleading, and all intended to make you ignore the first factoid you listed there. People who seriously listen to that crap should just go get stoned, it'd save them time.

You are made of trillions of these damn things, interacting in a horrificly complex system with permutations of possibility that defy any standard model or unified theory. That's no small bit of magic. Or in Cap'n talk, that's not nothing.

Like I said it was just some initial ponderings I was throwing around. I'm not saying we could ever predict anything based on this, like you said it would be infinitely complicated. All I was thinking about is that each particle interaction has a certain probability wave thing and so these would, I would have thought, combine to give a certain probability of an action on a larger scale - but one that would be (almost) infitely complicated to calculate.

I was just thinking about a comment that I think was made in the Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking (I don't have the book to hand to check the quote though, sorry) that said whether or not our search for a unified theory is successful could actually have already been determined by the theory.

But like I said we can't go around living life like we are merely a bunch of particles and as far as we are concerned we do have free will. It makes you wonder is all.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Piersnica:
It's cool, though, that there are other like-minded fans.

It is very cool. And even if Browncoats don't agree on stuff we've got Firefly in common. That's not much... but it's enough.

(Ok shameless, gratuitous firefly paraphrasing I know - so throw me out the airlock)

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:16 AM

WYDRAZ

OiS is one of my favorites too. Funny thing is, perhaps because I'm not an atheist, it helped confirm some beliefs I have about God. What's even funnier to me is how people can claim there is no God. Those that don't believe in something more powerful than themself, I'd say might have an arrogance issue.

All that exists cannot be perceived by human senses, and to assume that we know everything is the hight of human presumptuousness. By saying there is no God, one presumes to know all there is to know; one also presumes to know what God is, and that's something everyone must define for themselves. At least, perhaps, until String Theory or the next quantum leap in science proves God's existence, as many scientists are beginning to realize.

Okay, I'm way off topic now, and I'll get off the pulpit. Sorry about that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
All that exists cannot be perceived by human senses, and to assume that we know everything is the hight of human presumptuousness.

Indeed. But I don't think anyone here claimed they can perceive everything.

Quote:

By saying there is no God, one presumes to know all there is to know;

I don't agree on this. Claiming that there is no God is not the same as claiming one is a God oneself. In a way, believing there is no God is a religion as well. That is why personnally, I would say I'm an agnostic, i.e. I simply don't know.

Quote:

At least, perhaps, until String Theory or the next quantum leap in science proves God's existence, as many scientists are beginning to realize.

Explain to me just how string theory can do that! Frankly, I don't really see the connection.

But the thing about proving God's existence reminds me of a passage from 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I don't have the books here, but it was something about the babelfish, I'll try to remember as good as I can:
"'I deny to prove that I exist' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I'm nothing'. 'Well', says man, 'The babelfish is a dead give-away, it couldn't have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and therefore, by your own logic, you don't. QED.' 'Oh', says God, 'I didn't think of that!' and instantly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Something like that... Makes me wonder how many true believers you find in the bible, actually, that is, those who have not seen some kind of prove.

Sorry for being totally off-topic here, just a very interesting subject, I couldn't resist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:41 AM

I think assuming that people who don't believe in God are arrogant and don't accept a power higher than themselves is a little off the mark, akin to saying that religious people are just afraid to take responsibility for their own actions. Neither is really true (although, I'm sure for some individuals on both sides, it is).

I believe in many powers above myself. I believe it's likely there are aliens who are far more intelligent than I (although I'm not certain). Hell, I'm certain there are people who are better than I. I believe the wonder of the universe in all its supreme, natural majesty is far greater than any one being can conceive, and that's okay, that's beautiful. I even believe it's possible that there is some form of God. I just believe that on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far, that this is not the likeliest scenario. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm humble enough to admit I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. If I am, I'd hope that whatever omnipotent entity out there is not so petty as to punish me eternally for being wrong, but we are limited creatures.

As to the whole 'elementary particles' vs 'free will'... I took a philosophy course a couple years ago where they put forth arguments that determinism and free will aren't necessarily incompatible (and that non-determinism doesn't necessarily grant free will, as currently quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is probabalistic). I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but there were some interesting things to think about. The way I look at it is that we act as though we have free will, so then the question's moot. Whether it's free will, "Not Actually Free Will But An Incredible Simulation", "I Can't Believe It's Not Free Will", doesn't really significantly alter how we act, and a difference which makes no difference is no difference.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
OiS is one of my favorites too. Funny thing is, perhaps because I'm not an atheist, it helped confirm some beliefs I have about God. What's even funnier to me is how people can claim there is no God. Those that don't believe in something more powerful than themself, I'd say might have an arrogance issue.

All that exists cannot be perceived by human senses, and to assume that we know everything is the hight of human presumptuousness. By saying there is no God, one presumes to know all there is to know; one also presumes to know what God is, and that's something everyone must define for themselves. At least, perhaps, until String Theory or the next quantum leap in science proves God's existence, as many scientists are beginning to realize.

Okay, I'm way off topic now, and I'll get off the pulpit. Sorry about that.

Ok. I'm going to set out my athiestish beliefs here so if anyone might be offended I apologise, no offensiveness is intended.

Firstly I consider myself pretty much an athiest. I don't believe that there is a God but I rule nothing out 100%. I think if there is a Creator it is likely to be of the form of an alien messing about in a lab with black holes accidently creating our Universe. The Bible or any apparent miracles are not sufficient evidence for me that there is a God and so I have no reason to believe in one. A lack of evidence does not prove the converse but I think the chances of us having hit on the exact explanation of the universe are pretty slim.

I don't believe I have 'arrogance issues'. In fact I believe humans are just one second in the history of the Universe. The Universe will exist long after we are gone and humans are just a very tiny unpowerful part of it.

I do not presume to know all there is to know. In fact it a constant source of annoyance to me that we will never know all there is to know about the Universe. This is why I want to be a physicist - to find out as much as there is to know.

It really makes me dizzy to consider 'where is the universe?' What is outside of it? What was before it? I know the Universe is everything and there is nothing outside of it but that is an impossible concept to comprehend. I don't think saying God created the Universe answers it. Because in that case who created God. If you then say God has always existed - then why can't you use the argument the Universe/Multiverse in some form or other has always existed.

So basically what I'm trying to say and I don't think I put very well. Is that I don't think not believing in God means that I think I know all that there is too know or assume that human beings are the most powerful force in the universe.

If any of the above came off with me sounding like I have 'arrogance issues' then I apologise. Like I said I am not 100% sure of anything these views are just the way in which I personally interpret any evidence.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
OiS is one of my favorites too. Funny thing is, perhaps because I'm not an atheist, it helped confirm some beliefs I have about God. What's even funnier to me is how people can claim there is no God. Those that don't believe in something more powerful than themself, I'd say might have an arrogance issue.

Uh oh. Now, you shouldn't have done that while I was prowlin' around.

Quote:
All that exists cannot be perceived by human senses, and to assume that we know everything is the hight of human presumptuousness. By saying there is no God, one presumes to know all there is to know; one also presumes to know what God is, and that's something everyone must define for themselves. At least, perhaps, until String Theory or the next quantum leap in science proves God's existence, as many scientists are beginning to realize.

Not(White) Does Not Equal Pure(Black). You are leaping from one extreme to another, and it don't add up.

Things I think are bigger than me: How 'bout EVERYTHING ELSE. I just got to look outside and watch a summer thunderstorm roll by to know that. Existence is humbling enough, if you bother to look at it.

Things I think I know: Jack @!#$, compared to all there is to know. I know my reality, I know my dreams, and I know my mind. My brain's frickin' full from that stuff already, so I wouldn't presume to be omniscient enough to predict whether God and the Pearly Gates exist or not. But I don't think it matters if he does or not. I'd be living the same either way - as best I can, with the best morals I can figure.

This ain't presumption, nor arrogance. If it turns out I'm wrong, God'll likely smack me around when he gets me. But that's next life. Got enough worries in this one.

(Strings? WTF?)

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:

This is why I want to be a physicist - to find out as much as there is to know.

Shiny! I'm a physicist myself!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:04 AM

Ok firstly to say: You all beat me to replying to that post and all put it much better than I did. Sorry mine wasn't expressed very well

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
The way I look at it is that we act as though we have free will, so then the question's moot. Whether it's free will, "Not Actually Free Will But An Incredible Simulation", "I Can't Believe It's Not Free Will", doesn't really significantly alter how we act, and a difference which makes no difference is no difference.

'An incredible simulation' - that was so totally well put.
The fact that it makes no difference was kind of what I was trying to say when I was saying that we can't live our lives like we are merely a bunch of particles. But you put it a million times better.

Damn you all to Hades for your eloquence and coherent ideas.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Quote:
Originally posted by heb:

This is why I want to be a physicist - to find out as much as there is to know.

Shiny! I'm a physicist myself!

Cool! What do you do? I'm going to Uni in the Autumn (grades permitting) to study either Physics or Natural Sciences with a view to specialising in physics later.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:16 AM

Ok three posts from me in a row is getting sad and obsessive but I forgot to say something:

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
OiS is one of my favorites too. Funny thing is, perhaps because I'm not an atheist, it helped confirm some beliefs I have about God.

Yeah it is interesting that we interpret things in different ways. I guess that's what makes us all different. Like in Firefly - the War (if we intrepet his back story this way) confirmed/started Book's faith in God, whilst for Mal it made him lose his faith in God (whether he still believes he exists or not).

Objects in Space is a great episode. And thanks for offering some conflicting opinions to this thread; it was in danger of just being a thread full of people hanging around agreeing with each other, which is never healthy.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:

Cool! What do you do? I'm going to Uni in the Autumn (grades permitting) to study either Physics or Natural Sciences with a view to specialising in physics later.

I'm a PhD student, working in experimental nuclear physics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Originally posted by heb:

I'm a PhD student, working in experimental nuclear physics.

Shiny. I'm quite interested in theoretical physics. I tend to break, collapse, destroy experiments and end up apparently proving that the speed of light in free space is 5m/s or that 1=4. Basically I shouldn't really be allowed near experiments. But hopefully if someone hands me some experimental data then I might be able to interpret that.

I used to want to be a cosmologist. Now I'm not really sure all I know is something theoretical would be good. If I get on the course I want to do though I'd have to study chemisty and biology for the first year as well.

If you could maybe sum up a complex piece of nuclear physics in a few words in captain-dummy-talk then I'd be interested to know what it is you are researching.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:30 AM

I got a question that has been nagging me for a bit.

If in fact there is no God, (I am fairly agnostic) then is their any real pervasive morality inherent in the universe? I mean, if there is no template to base our lives upon, or anything to hold us accountable, then why are things like rape and murder "wrong?" What gives us the right to judge others for their actions. If society is the end all be all, and the arbiter of all, then must we accept that our lives are held to others standards, and their morality may, and is forced down upon the individual? Are the collective always right? Looking back in history slavery was accepted for thousands of years, does that mean slavery, for that time, was an acceptable practice? Will the morals we live by today be scoffed at fifty or a hundred years in the future?

I don't know. I accept Christianity, (for example) as a good moral compass for many people, though I am as of yet undecided as to the existance of God. It seems to me that, if nothing else, it is a workable philosophy, and is no less "odd" then any other basis of morality.

Anyways, just some thoughts I've had in the past. If any of you have insight I would love to hear it.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I got a question that has been nagging me for a bit.

If in fact there is no God, (I am fairly agnostic) then is their any real pervasive morality inherent in the universe? I mean, if there is no template to base our lives upon, or anything to hold us accountable, then why are things like rape and murder "wrong?" What gives us the right to judge others for their actions. If society is the end all be all, and the arbiter of all, then must we accept that our lives are held to others standards, and their morality may, and is forced down upon the individual? Are the collective always right? Looking back in history slavery was accepted for thousands of years, does that mean slavery, for that time, was an acceptable practice? Will the morals we live by today be scoffed at fifty or a hundred years in the future?

It's an interesting and very difficult question. Like you, I accept much (though not all) of what you'd describe as 'Christian' morality (it's not exclusively Christian of course, but it's what my upbringing was so I use that in absence of a better label).

I tend to believe morality is subjective, but there are certain precepts that hold true and can be arrived at through reason. 'The Golden Rule' for example, makes an awful lot of sense. You do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You behave in ways that benefit the community, because a strong community benefits you. That does open it up for unscrupulous people who live within a community to take advantage of it, but you build up a system of laws to take advantage of that.

That doesn't completely address certain tetchy aspects of 'what is morality' (slavery, for example. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that's wrong), or different cultural values. Certain things in these areas you could argue that you can reach through the same rational process (Slavery may seem to be a good for society, but really it keeps down contributions of people who might contribute in a much better way of their own free will... a slave working out on the fields who could become a brilliant scientist as a free man is a shameful waste), but for others the best you may be able to do is say, 'We (our cultures) disagree on the morality of this, and we are willing to fight to make sure our way stands'.

All in all, the moral code I try to live by is to not do things that I would be ashamed of later. This naturally presupposes a moral teaching, which can be achieved any number of ways.

Although the book was only okay, 'Hominids' by Robert J. Sawyer (a SF book wherein a Neanderthal from a parallel universe crosses into ours) does have a couple interesting insights on the basis of an atheist morality (the Neanderthals in the book have no religion, but are remarkably moral). As I recall (and it's been a while since I read it), part of the idea was that without an afterlife, you can't justify that you can make up for your wrongs... if you kill someone, that's all there is for them, they don't get an afterlife of eternal bliss. You have to deal with the fact that you permanently ended them and there's no undoing it.

Not to shift the debate, but there are also problems with morality _with_ a God-being, because it usually also winds up being a form of 'might makes right'. Without a God, 'right' is determined by the majority, or the more powerful group, but at the same time is decided by every individual soul in a different way.
All interpretations are equally valid. With a God, morality is determined by the most powerful being, and it is valid only because 'right' is defined as 'what the omnipotent being said'.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:05 PM

Okay, here's a question.

Say I was unashamed to commit murder, say I just don't have a value for human life. Say I recognize that there is no God, and that humanity is one big cosmic joke, (the sum of a series of highly improbably random events that lead to life) and that human life has no intrinsic value. Would it be wrong for me to take a life? What if my morality had no qualms with murder, or rape, would it then be acceptable for you to judge me based on this? Say society, as a whole, adopted this philosophy, would that make it right? I mean, the majority, I would assume, of us would immediately say that it would be wrong, but why is it wrong? Because we were brought up to believe so? Several thousand years ago the Roman's had no qualm with setting up blood sport tournaments and then pitting man against man, and they were a remarkably successful and "advanced" society. Perhaps are baser instincts that desire such death and destruction are closer to the surface then many of us would care to admit?

Anyways, it just seems odd to me. I suppose, if nothing else, I hope that there is a God. I want there to be something or someone to hold me accountable for my actions if there is an afterlife. (I would like to think this would help me be a better person.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:10 PM

Quote:
then is their any real pervasive morality inherent in the universe?

Technically speaking.... no.

But then, things are so much less interesting taken technically.

Quote:
I mean, if there is no template to base our lives upon, or anything to hold us accountable, then why are things like rape and murder "wrong?"

We can conceive of them, of right and wrong. That is enough.

After all, if there is nothing inherently moral, then the morality of everything is what we make of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, here's a question.

Say I was unashamed to commit murder, say I just don't have a value for human life. Say I recognize that there is no God, and that humanity is one big cosmic joke, (the sum of a series of highly improbably random events that lead to life) and that human life has no intrinsic value. Would it be wrong for me to take a life?

From your perspective.... no. But then, your perspective would be so utterly lacking in order and light as to not even conceive of morality.

From my perspective... you'd be a damned soul.

From an absolute... you'd be a destructive soul. And while there is nothing inherently good or bad about destruction... nothing ever comes from it. Except less existence. So thankfully, from my perspective, your moral system would not be around too long for me to have to deal with.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:24 PM

Oh, its not my moral system, its merely me with some theoretical thinking...

Furthermore, I don't have to view destruction in the more common way, I can view it as a state change. Do you consider it destructive when you destroy the billions of bacterium on your body, (both helpful and hurtful) when you bathe? Do you think its destructive when you chew food? (Breaking it down with both physical and chemical forces.)

I mean, ones humanity might tell you that life is important, but isn't that little more then our desire to survive and not as much our inclination twords morality? Furthermore, why is something wrong? Because it is currently believed to be so? If that is the case, do you accept that homosexuality was wrong, (and still is in many areas) and that homosexuals are "sinners"? Or perhaps that blacks are subhuman, or shouldn't be given the same rights as the more typical anglosaxon. If the commonly accepted practices of man are the basis for the morality of the society, and how you hold people accountable then I can't see any way around that. If there is no moral black and white and only gray then can you comfortably place your (quite possibly) narrow interpretation of rightous morality on me? Should I feel guilty because my morality is different then yours?

Quote:
We can conceive of them, of right and wrong. That is enough.

After all, if there is nothing inherently moral, then the morality of everything is what we make of it.

And if my moral system differs from yours, would you be willing to judge me for mine? Would you be willing to be judged for your moral system if it differed from the "norm?" Say societies outlook differed from your own, what then?

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, here's a question.

Say I was unashamed to commit murder, say I just don't have a value for human life. Say I recognize that there is no God, and that humanity is one big cosmic joke, (the sum of a series of highly improbably random events that lead to life) and that human life has no intrinsic value. Would it be wrong for me to take a life? What if my morality had no qualms with murder, or rape, would it then be acceptable for you to judge me based on this?

It's perfectly acceptable for me to judge you based on that, and I have no problem with doing so. Well, you might not agree, but you're not me, and I'm the one doing the judging.

Quote:

Say society, as a whole, adopted this philosophy, would that make it right? I mean, the majority, I would assume, of us would immediately say that it would be wrong, but why is it wrong?

I think the main problem is not whether or not it's 'right' or 'wrong', but in determining what 'right' or 'wrong' mean. They don't have an absolute meaning in this scenario. But we might define 'right' to mean 'good for society'. Or we might define 'right' to be 'evolutionarily sound, a good strategy to pass on ones genes'. Then we can decide whether or not something is right in that particular context, but we can't judge the value of the context itself (except in terms of other contexts, like utility).

Say we're playing a game of 'Mob Monopoly'. The rules of the game state that if you land on a spot of another player, and you have more than twice the money required to buy it, you can play a card and 'kill' the player owning it (take them out of the game), in an attempt to get a lower price from his heirs. If you fail, you go to jail. Now, you can talk about within the game it's a good strategy to make that move. You can certainly talk about whether it's allowed by the rules. But you still can't talk about whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' until you decide whether you mean 'good strategy' or 'allowed by the rules' by 'right'.

I think that widespread acceptance of murder, rape, etc, is a remarkably poor strategy for a society. It also violates my personal moral code, which is subjective, but that's the best I can say, other than that if you take this path, my morality will require me to act in certain ways to stop it. (There's that old quote from a British general or something in India long ago, that comes to mind and I'm paraphrasing 'It's your custom to burn women to death. It is our custom to hang murderers. You build your pyre, and next to it we will build a gallows. You may follow your custom, and then we shall follow ours'.)

There are certain gray areas where it just makes more sense to say 'I'm not going to judge' in relative morality, but there are others where you have to.

Quote:

Anyways, it just seems odd to me. I suppose, if nothing else, I hope that there is a God. I want there to be something or someone to hold me accountable for my actions if there is an afterlife. (I would like to think this would help me be a better person.)

In truth, I hope there's some sort of benevolent God too. Basically one that more or less shares my morality, but has all the information at hand. I just don't believe it.

But again, with a God you just get down to 'I'm right (or wrong)' because He Says So. I've never found any satisfactory reason why a God, if one exists, must necessarily be one we would judge as moral. Say there's a God, but he finds it the supreme morality to poke people in the eyes with sticks. Everyone who dies and didn't make a regular practice of poking people's eyes with sticks, gets punished (perhaps by the aforementioned stick-poking throughout eternity... it's a good, moral punishment, after all). This God is all powerful, so no one can really argue. Is this God then _right_? I don't know. I think even if Gods are going to judge us and have the power to make their verdicts 'stick', doesn't mean we should not judge them.

All I know is, I certainly don't want the Stick-Poking God to hold me accountable for my actions.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Oh, its not my moral system, its merely me with some theoretical thinking...

Aren't we all?

Quote:
Furthermore, I don't have to view destruction in the more common way, I can view it as a state change. Do you consider it destructive when you destroy the billions of bacterium on your body, (both helpful and hurtful) when you bathe? Do you think its destructive when you chew food? (Breaking it down with both physical and chemical forces.)

That it is transformative makes it no less destructive. You can toss something into the sun. Poof, it is destroyed. Yet the sun is constantly using it's fuel, creating energy and forcing it out. Creating and also destroying. One does not subtract from the other.

Now, you can view killing as a state change. But your view is your view, and it is not absolute. If the absolute was purely physical, then yes, you're doing the fertilizer trade a great service. It's not. The absolute includes the mental, the sentience that you have destroyed, which is not reformed. The absolute includes the order and structure of the body that you have broken down, which is not recreated. If your view wishes it right, then it is right. It is still never other than destruction. And ultimately, self-destructive.

Quote:
*snipping the flamebait, skipping to the meat*
And if my moral system differs from yours, would you be willing to judge me for mine?

Yes.

Quote:
Would you be willing to be judged for your moral system if it differed from the "norm?"

Yes. We wouldn't be having this bizarre chat otherwise.

Quote:
Say societies outlook differed from your own, what then?

I'd argue. I'd convince. I'd think, absorb their outlook into mine, reject what I find as flawed from mine and theirs, incorporate what I found sound. Form my morality anew, as best I could, and get others to do the same.

Kinda like right here.

The sig kinda sums it up.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:

Below

Quote:
It's perfectly acceptable for me to judge you based on that, and I have no problem with doing so. Well, you might not agree, but you're not me, and I'm the one doing the judging.

Fair enough, I suppose, until you are the one being judged because you don't hold a common morality of society.

Quote:
I think that widespread acceptance of murder, rape, etc, is a remarkably poor strategy for a society.

Maybe for society, but why is society the end-all be-all? Non society based animals rape, and "murder" and yet they survive, and often thrive. Even very secular and society orientated animals, (insects) can have massive wars with each other, (ants are incredibly territorial, if I remember correctly, and wars between ants is fairly common). It seems to me that a society is nothing more then a set interaction amongst beings, and in this case humans. Perhaps it would be counter productive to the current society, but a new society could easily spring up from another, seperate, moral code.

Quote:
There's that old quote from a British general or something in India long ago...

Perhaps he could say that with impugnity as he was the overwhelming force in the area. What if a force came into your area, said that you could punish criminals, but in doing so all judges and juries would be summarily executed. The reaction maybe completely different when you are the one on the recieving end.

Quote:
But again, with a God you just get down to 'I'm right (or wrong)' because He Says So. I've never found any satisfactory reason why a God, if one exists, must necessarily be one we would judge as moral.

This is a fairly simple answer, (at least for me). If there is a God, then by definition it can be assumed that he is always right, regardless. A morality contrary to God is godless, and thus wrong. If said God exists then things become much simpler. You have an aribiter that is indisputably right on all accounts.

Quote:
Now, you can view killing as a state change. But your view is your view, and it is not absolute. If the absolute was purely physical, then yes, you're doing the fertilizer trade a great service. It's not. The absolute includes the mental, the sentience that you have destroyed, which is not reformed. The absolute includes the order and structure of the body that you have broken down, which is not recreated. If your view wishes it right, then it is right. It is still never other than destruction. And ultimately, self-destructive.

Matter can not be created nor destroyed. End of story. Matter can undergo state changes. You determine something to be destructive because you are viewing it from a very general perspective. Your actions could very easily be described as destructive from anothers perspective, (the bacterium argument). From my experience it ends up being entirely about perspective.

By the way, sorry that you thought my post was flamebait, Radhil, that most definately was not the purpose.

Quote:
I'd argue. I'd convince. I'd think, absorb their outlook into mine, reject what I find as flawed from mine and theirs, incorporate what I found sound. Form my morality anew, as best I could, and get others to do the same.

Would you stop your actions that society deemed as immoral if you, after careful examination, didn't find them to be wrong?

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

Fair enough, I suppose, until you are the one being judged because you don't hold a common morality of society.

Yep. But then it's my responsibility to try to make society to agree with me, or I have to accept that they'll judge me (though I can try to escape their judgement in various ways).

It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Quote:

Perhaps for society, but why is society the end-all be-all? Non society based animals rape, and "murder" and yet they survive, and often thrive. Even very secular and society orientated animals, (insects) can have massive wars with each other, (ants are incredibly territorial, if I remember correctly, and wars between ants is fairly common). It seems to me that a society is nothing more then a set interaction amongst beings, and in this case humans. Perhaps it would be counter productive to the current society, but a new society could easily spring up from another, seperate, moral code.

Society shouldn't necessarily be the end all and be all. But it's one possible way of defining 'what is right?' And, since the society here is the one deciding what is right, deciding based on what is good for the society is a decent place to start. From an evolutionary standpoint, societies which don't keep in mind what is good for them will likely not survive and be replaced by other societies which do. Let's say there is no group morality at all, and each individual decides without thinking, at all, of anyone outside himself. Sure, he could decide it's 'right' to shoot himself in the head. But once he's done that, he's no longer in the arena for making decisions, so his opinions don't matter anymore, and those that decide that shooting yourself in the head is 'wrong' will be the only ones left making the decisions.

Quote:

Perhaps he could say that with impugnity as he was the overwhelming force in the area. What if a force came into your area, said that you could punish criminals, but in doing so all judges and juries would be summarily executed. The reaction maybe completely different when you are the one on the recieving end.

Of course. I never said it was a perfect system.
In fact, it's extremely imperfect.

I just don't think it's that worse off than the alternative. I don't think the problems with morality are solvable on either end, whether you posit a God or not. Some people just find it easier to accept the problems that are brought up when you have a God.

Quote:
This is a fairly simple answer, (at least for me). If there is a God, then by definition it can be assumed that he is always right, regardless. A morality contrary to God is godless, and thus wrong. If said God exists then things become much simpler. You have an aribiter that is indisputably right on all accounts.

_Only_ because we defined it such. Sorry, I don't buy that. If we decide 'right' is 'whatever the majority decides is right', we've got the exact same problems. Exactly. If the majority decides killing is right, it's right. If they decide the next day that it's wrong, it's wrong. (A God could change its mind too). All that a God gets you is someone who can always back up its whims no matter how painful it may be to everyone else (and, granted, if we posit omniscience, one who can't be incorrect about whether the person did the 'wrong' they've been accused of). At least with a relative morality there can be checks and balances, as ideas of right and wrong which just don't _work_ will tend to be marginalized.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:18 PM

Well, thats assuming that God wouldn't accept a certain degree of moral grey. God can be always right and still be able to accept that we will not always be. Perhaps God accepts and embraces relative morality. Who knows?

As per whether or not a God can change his/her/its mind, I am not comfortable postulating either way. I don't know if I can comfortably dictate what a God can or can't do.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:35 PM

Quote:
Matter can not be created nor destroyed. End of story. Matter can undergo state changes. You determine something to be destructive because you are viewing it from a very general perspective. Your actions could very easily be described as destructive from anothers perspective, (the bacterium argument). From my experience it ends up being entirely about perspective.

The best general perspective is the global one, and is as close as I can get to shedding perspective completely. Thus it serves as a good baseline to toss and break my opinions against.

As for bacterium... there is no sentience, and no massive structure as compared to a human (unless you have a massive walking colony with tentacles, a phenomenon my refridgerator is working on producing). Destruction on that scale can therefore be more equated with a state change. Not quite, but far closer. Take note that it's still something you'd want to avoid - many bacteria form part of a complex ecological structure, and can be helpful. I used to dump a certain culture of bacteria into my fishtank, and they kept my fishies healthy while the water slowly stagnated between replacements. A full removal of bacteria from our bodies would render us vulnerable to innumerable diseases. But in general, I'm not gonna worry about stepping on one. That's the best I can do.

Quote:
By the way, sorry that you thought my post was flamebait, Radhil, that most definately was not the purpose.

I know it wasn't the purpose, but getting bogged down in the semantics of modern and elder day racism would've been too easy. I was far more interested in the overbearing conversation.

Quote:
Would you stop your actions that society deemed as immoral if you, after careful examination, didn't find them to be wrong?

*chuckle* It's your sig that says "I don't care, I'm still free", isn't it? 'Course not. Freedom in a nutshell there - believe what others don't.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:47 PM

MAUGWAI

I think there is something besides religion that keeps our morality in check.

James Baldwin one wrote, "Men pay for their crimes by the lives which they lead." That is so true if you look around you. I've never met a mean person who wasn't miserable. Look at Jayne. Look how nervous and guilty he felt over betraying Simon and River. And how happy he was to be the hero in Jaynestown, only to feel horribly guilty when his "heroics" caused an innocent death.

Then look at Kaylee. She's always happy because she always has the best intentions. This isn't an absolute, of course. I'm sure there are psychos who love to kill people, but even there it's a warped sense of joy.

I guess this all boils down to the feeling we get when our conscience takes over.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Below

Quote:
The best general perspective is the global one, and is as close as I can get to shedding perspective completely. Thus it serves as a good baseline to toss and break my opinions against.

The most global perspective will tell you that individuals, and indeed humanity as a whole is irrelevent. In a few billion, (or is it million, I keep forgetting) the sun will nova and man kind will be dead and gone. (If we remain here anyways.) Even if it is possible to maintain our civilization, (read Manifld Time for some interesting theories)I doubt we can last more then a few million years. In a trillion years, (I would estimate VERY liberally) whatever impact man can have made will be gone. Be it by our own hands or something else entirely. My actions, or yours, are of no consequence to the universe, even if morals were relevent.

Quote:
As for bacterium... there is no sentience, and no massive structure as compared to a human (unless you have a massive walking colony with tentacles, a phenomenon my refridgerator is working on producing).

Life, is life, is life. Sentience is irrelevent. You are being destructive, according to our previous discussions, destroying the trillions and trillions of bacterium you kill during the period of your existance, just as you are if you kill a human.

Now, personally, I don't think destruction is a negative or a positive. "Destruction," as I have said before, is a change of state. The individual atom cares not whether or not it undergoes alpha, or beta, or gamma decay, the strings of atoms making up molecules doesn't have any agenda other then, perhaps, maintaining its bonds, or forming other bonds, if it happens to be interrupted it doesn't feel depression, it changes and adapts.

Quote:
*chuckle* It's your sig that says "I don't care, I'm still free", isn't it? 'Course not. Freedom in a nutshell there - believe what others don't.

My sig is not your own.

And in that case one must wonder of Mr. Manson is sitting back having a good chuckle, and who's to say he's wrong for doing it? It could just as easily be me in five years if the winds of change come.

Quote:
I think there is something besides religion that keeps our morality in check.

Karma? I know of serial killers who have no remorse for their actions, or people that live good lives that are terribly miserable all the time.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 2:26 PM

Quote:
Life, is life, is life. Sentience is irrelevent. You are being destructive, according to our previous discussions,.....Now, personally, I don't think destruction is a negative or a positive.

Yes, I'm being destructive, but my existence makes it unavoidable. As you said, it itself is not negative or positive, and I myself have made this point. Only when it's out of balance does everything get frelled.

And no.... life is life is life.... no. Life is not created equal. It is if you hold life sacred, as an absolute in your morality. Many do. I do not. Tricky to balance, viewing that way and keeping ego in check, but I make do.

Quote:
The most global perspective will tell you that individuals, and indeed humanity as a whole is irrelevent. In a few billion, (or is it million, I keep forgetting) the sun will nova and man kind will be dead and gone.

Yes it does. Takeing that assumption further, you get a choice - life itself, and sentience, becomes either a universal pattern or a happy accident. Purpose or no purpose.

Does it come as any suprise that I hold purpose as an absolute, in much the same slot most people put life?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Below

Quote:
Only when it's out of balance does everything get frelled.

What balance? Destruction, while having an inherently negative terminology, doesn't live on a balance with construction. They simply are. There is no, (at least for the sake of argument) overriding purpose for one or the other. Matter is, typically, apathetic.

Quote:
And no.... life is life is life.... no. Life is not created equal. It is if you hold life sacred, as an absolute in your morality. Many do. I do not. Tricky to balance, viewing that way and keeping ego in check, but I make do.

I don't think life is equal, more like I think, (for this philosophy anyways) life is inherently terribly unimportant. What we consider to be life is nothing but the faintest glimmer in the history of the universe. Our lives, no matter how good, or heinous, mean absolutely nothing in the grand scale. No matter what we do we can not make an impact on anything universal. Its, in a way, rather depressing, but at the same time almost a relief.

I find it comic how seriously some people take the present, (granted I take the present seriously, but I am not crazed over current events) when there is such a massive scaling of time both before us and behind us. Humbling is the word I would use to describe it.

Quote:
Does it come as any suprise that I hold purpose as an absolute, in much the same slot most people put life?

Purpose? Care to elaborate?

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
Let's say there is no group morality at all, and each individual decides without thinking, at all, of anyone outside himself. Sure, he could decide it's 'right' to shoot himself in the head. But once he's done that, he's no longer in the arena for making decisions, so his opinions don't matter anymore, and those that decide that shooting yourself in the head is 'wrong' will be the only ones left making the decisions.

True. But also, the one that shot himself won't care about that anymore. If the goal of your morality is to provide the best chances of survival for the group and therefore for the individual, you base it on survival instinct. I find that a questionable approach. For one thing, the good of society and the good of one individual don't always coincide. For another, humans can be (are!) awfully shortsighted when it comes to their own good. Also, it very much depends on who you include into your society, who matters, and who is left out and can therefore be used for the good of your group.

@JCobb: I very much understand your line of thought here. I quite often have the same thoughts. The problem is just, when you think it through, nothing will mean anything and you can indeed just go shoot yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:28 PM

I was selling books for my book shop at a talk a year ago by the philosopher A.C. Grayling. A lot of it went over my head but he was talking about his book called 'What is Good?' and I thought it might be relevant if anyone wants to check it out.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:12 PM

MANTICHORUS

Well, personally, I'm a Christian, but we'll leave that cat away from the pigeons for the time being...
Aspects of philosophy intrigue me, in a similar way that different mythologies do. From a psychological/sociological POV (what I'm actually studying), I would explain morality as something that evoloves in groups to enable the individuals in said group to co-exist harmoniously with one-another, and to ensure the survival of the group and their way of life (a bit long winded, I know, but hey!).
"Everything has a meaning or nothing has." -Roland Barthes.

--------------------------------------------------
MAL: "Well, look at this! Appears them boys at Fox have decided to cancel us. What does that make them?"
ZOE: "Big damn idiots, sir."
MAL: "Ain't they just."
--------------------------------------------------
Writing at: [url] http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=520496 [/url]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
True. But also, the one that shot himself won't care about that anymore. If the goal of your morality is to provide the best chances of survival for the group and therefore for the individual, you base it on survival instinct. I find that a questionable approach. For one thing, the good of society and the good of one individual don't always coincide. For another, humans can be (are!) awfully shortsighted when it comes to their own good. Also, it very much depends on who you include into your society, who matters, and who is left out and can therefore be used for the good of your group.

Oh, you're right, I'm not saying it's based exclusively on 'survival' at all. I'm just saying that's a decent starting point, because it's natural. From there you have to go on, you have to think ahead, decide what aspects of your society are essential and which aren't (if 'freedom' is essential, then individual rights are a lot more important). But it's a starting point. So perhaps it's more fair to describe it in terms of a negative... If some 'moral code' would clearly lead to the total breakdown of a society (like 'Murder is a-ok, kill whoever you want!'), then it's a clear 'wrong' for the society. If you leave out the people who seem to believe 'gay marriage will end society!' or other such things, it makes a decent and IMHO pretty solid foundation. But it's only a foundation, and you must go much farther than that to have a complete workable morality. (And, for that matter, some of it will just arise spontaneously or evolve out of circumstances and events, even if it doesn't necessarily follow from anything else. If a food tends to cause sickness in some people, perhaps it eventually becomes 'immoral' to eat, which might last even after it's discovered how to make it perfectly safe)

(The exact balance of 'individual rights' vs 'society's rights' is almost just as tough a question as finding a moral basis in the first place. Different societys have drawn the line in different places, but I don't think there've been any that haven't drawn it at all)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:29 AM

WYDRAZ

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

In a trillion years, (I would estimate VERY liberally) whatever impact man can have made will be gone. Be it by our own hands or something else entirely. My actions, or yours, are of no consequence to the universe, even if morals were relevent.

There it is again. Presumtion.

There is little, if anything, that is inconsequential. Ever hear of the Butterfly Effect? Every action has a reaction, and it's impossible to tell if it is truly irrelevent in the cosmic scale. Your own actions might make the difference between the scenario you posit and one where the galaxy becomes populated by the descendants of the human species.

Sure, it's a longshot, but it is possible. You might one day hit a racoon with your car, killing it. It happens to be carrying a disease, and it would have bitten a neighbor's little boy the next day. Thanks to you, that boy avoids being killed by the infection, and he grows up to invent warp drive. That leads to our exploring the galaxy, and colonizing hundreds of worlds, eventually leading to what I would certainly think of as a significant presence in the galaxy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:01 AM

WYDRAZ

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Explain to me just how string theory can do that! Frankly, I don't really see the connection.

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. I don't mean to offend, but there are many things I don't understand, yet I don't discount that they might be connected in some way, as perhaps all things are.

Einstein's theories were partly rooted in his search for God. String theory, in some ways, to some scientists, is similar.

For more on String theory and "reading the mind of God", start here: http://www.mkaku.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Explain to me just how string theory can do that! Frankly, I don't really see the connection.

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. I don't mean to offend, but there are many things I don't understand, yet I don't discount that they might be connected in some way, as perhaps all things are.

Oh, I would never claim that I understood everything! But if you claim that string theory can proof the existence of God or is somehow linked to it, then you must have at least some idea of what string theory is and how God results from it. And I mean really from the theory, not some interpretation of it.

Quote:

Einstein's theories were partly rooted in his search for God. String theory, in some ways, to some scientists, is similar.

I guess we are all looking for some sort of meaning in what we are doing, whether we call it God or something else. Doesn't mean we always get what we are looking for. Or maybe we find some personal truth/meaning, but that doesn't prove anything to anyone else. And just that Einstein was looking for God and while at it came up with some great results, doesn't mean everyone else has to share his motivation.

Quote:

For more on String theory and "reading the mind of God", start here: http://www.mkaku.org

Just read this article on 'Hyperspace and a Theory of Everything'. Sure, he talks about creation as part of the theory. But the big question that remains is whether creation always needs a creator? Even in a perfect vacuum a particle-antiparticle pair can spontanously be created out of nowhere. Is that some God being bored, or is it just probability? I don't know. But that God would have to be very bored indeed.
(btw, personally, I find the expression 'reading the mind of God' kind of arrogant. That I don't believe in any God doesn't mean I have to insult him/her/it/them by implying I could even come close to comprehending their mind(s).)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:19 AM