Philosophical Questions

[Moving Target]

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?

Nope. You need the one for the other.

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?

You might make a case for some things, but, no. Humanity creates things when they're ready for the technology. The changes can be frightening, but they're never over our collective heads.

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing." (True? False? Somewhere in between?)

Well, they know that, so that's obviously not entirely true.

IV. Murderer or Murdered?

Buh?

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?

The latter. Though it's much harder, and requires quite a bit more forethought.

 

[34thcell]

Murdered for your children?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Jeez, this thread has lots of potential for..... something, but I am to lazy to really try to kick my spurs into it. It's hard to debate philosophy or politics constructively in NMA, because of the 3 main groups of people who frequent it.

1. Conservative gun-nuts who think fallout is some sort of holy combination of 1s and 0s meant to reign in the day where their arguments and values are proved right by the amount of tax money they don't pay, using it instead to spend on military grade weapons and porn.

2. Ivory-Tower intellectuals who have grown into rabid beasts from years of studying in European art circles who dominate arguments with a myriad of arguments and facts with the same subtlety as a German machine-gun emplacement.

3. Pseudo-intellectual liberals who try to play the game with the true intellectuals because they share the joy of being right, but are to lazy to educate themselves, and get the emo achievement in the order, or banned by Wooz.

Also, drug use is rampant here.

Here's a questions. If a man's will is what he uses to grant his desires and maintain his ego, then is man's will good, evil, or is it more complicated than that? Is ego a blessing, a curse, or just like your fingers, hands and feet....a tool?

 

[Patton89]

Good and Evil do not exist. They are OBVIOUSLY purely subjective. There, are however, illogical things to do. Killing your own species is illogical. So person will cannot be "evil", or "good".
Ego is nothing but a tool, in order to enable survival in the world. There are no pure "blessings" or "curses"

 

[Deleted member 53669]

One could say that killing your own species is logical, it is an excellent Darwinian method in regards to the gene pool, and for self-success. Rape is also a very logical tactic in this sense. So, is it evil, or immoral? What are the differences between morality and divisions of good/evil?

 

[Patton89]

One could say that killing your own species is logical, it is an excellent Darwinian method in regards to the gene pool, and for self-success. Rape is also a very logical tactic in this sense. So, is it evil, or immoral? What are the differences between morality and divisions of good/evil?

Yet it is ilogical in long run, as you will end up LIMITING the gene pool, harming the devolopment of your own species in the long run. Also you will increase the likely hood of your own death. And rape will not lead to succession, as the mother can abandon the child, or now-a-days, abort the child. Getting caught on those will certainly limit your chances to reproduce.(unless butseks in prison is reproduction.. ) So no logic there.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Oh really? Want to know why you are not speaking arabic or latin at the moment? Atillia The Hun, and Genghis Khan. Murder is an effective tool in the long run. Assassinations, and the mixing of the gene pool outside races. These things have strengthened nations throughout history and created power bases and catalysts for change and evolution. Even martyrs for religious circles, have had the ability to rally people constructively throughout history in a way impossible without death or icon worship. Fear of death and immoral acts is what holds nations together. Consequences dictate the course of action for groups. One can't say that for individuals, but there is a repeating pattern of this happening within states. So is there another form of logic that tells us killing is illogical, or are we living in a comfortable illusion of safety and kinsmenship?

 

[Patton89]

Maybe in history, and in large scale, but not in todays world.
And What created the power base ? was it that they raped and murdered, or was it that they had effective armies, superior to many others ? Having superior armies, they could do what they wanted. And how long did their empires, and culture survive, and DOMINATE ? Huns were not that united, or long lasting. Huns success can be partly attributed to the weakness, and clear downturn of the roman empire. IF roman empire had been on top of its power, and still vigorous, hunns would have not been as successfull. Long lasting cultures are hard to build on war. Their empire lasted 100 years, or even less.
Mongol empire was large, humoungous, yes, but it too died after genkhis khan death, by internal instability, and parted into four kingdoms. And in the end, Khans disappered.
Such empires, tend to be unstable, and may actually harm development, but may also improve it. In the end , they are too uncertain, and can lead to demise and uneccessary death.
And in todays world, wars are not needed for exchange of genes, as people move without such things, as it is evident in modern world. Natural disasters will make gene pool move, and will make people migrate, and people have curious nature, and there fore will move, and moved, in the ancient world.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

So, under certain conditions, violence and force could be seen as logical. What are those conditions and who is to say what they should be?

 

[Patton89]

Violence can be logical, if it is DEFENSIVE, or no other option is present, and not using it would result in the destruction of your offspring, or the desctruction of large number of humans.

I cannot determine exactly what the condions could be, as i am a human being, and human thought process is in the end,will always bit illogical, or lacking in the amount of scenarios taken into account. There are no purely logical people. Then they would be machines.

 

[Lukus]

Parents would say yes by default, non-parents couldn't answer this (imo) with no real substance to the argument.

You're using a double negation, but I'm assuming you meant to say that "non parent's couldn't answer this (imo) with any real substance to the argument".

How would default yes-saying parents have more substance to their argument? "To hell with the world and everyone who shall exist after me" isn't more invalid than "Let's all become dyke veggies and use low energy lightbulbs because I have a kid". It's more PC to say yes, obviously, but to say that people who are not parents are hence not in position to answer a question about what they value regarding their priorities in life, considering coming generations, is just plain stupid. You lose.

I am not a parent, and right now, I don't really care about coming generations or world starvation or the environment or anything gay like that. When/if I become a parent, I will obviously start caring about all that lame stuff, but there's no point in starting now. My change won't make any significant difference anyway (which is a perfectly valid statement, and people who say "that statement is invalid becoz otherwise democracy wouldn't work and blah blah blah" are faggots, for that is completely ignoring the fact that my total energy consumption or gas production is not the end or salvation of the world). I'll start to care when/if I become a parent just because it will be PC, and parents have to be PC. It happens to all of them. "You gotto see the baby" and what not. Anyway, I digress.

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?
Yes, as Mikael Furry said, in a very small scale (like 10 people in a hippie household without rules but where people still treat eachother with some form of respect), but quite obviously not on a national or global level.

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?
Too gay; will not answer.

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing." (True? False? Somewhere in between?)
Sure, why not. I'd rather frase it "The one thing we can be sure of is that we can't really be sure of anything", though.

IV. Murderer or Murdered?
I'd rather kill someone than be killed, sure. Depends a bit on the person - I could see giving my life for family or other people I care about, but for a stranger I'm pitted against? No way in hell.

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?
How about both? Also, making tomorrow better for my future children does not neccesarily mean going all veggie dyke and using low energy light bulbs, it just means having a lot of money.

These are by no means easy questions, but please share your thoughts.
Are you kidding me? They were easy as shit. I have a total feeling that I aced it!

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Violence can be logical, if it is DEFENSIVE, or no other option is present, and not using it would result in the destruction of your offspring, or the desctruction of large number of humans.

I cannot determine exactly what the condions could be, as i am a human being, and human thought process is in the end,will always bit illogical, or lacking in the amount of scenarios taken into account. There are no purely logical people. Then they would be machines.

Defensive? Who are you to say your life is more important than someone else's? There is no such thing as defense when involving killing, only restrained offense. So does that mean humans are ultimately selfish?




Luke, shouldn't you be fucking that hippie chick or something? Or at the gym?

 

[Keegah]

For the mentally starved, a buffet of food for thought
(humor me with that pun)

PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS:

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing." (True? False? Somewhere in between?)

IV. Murderer or Murdered?

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?

These are by no means easy questions, but please share your thoughts.

I DETECT HIGH POTENTIAL FOR PRETENTIOUSNESS IN THIS THREAD.
I.
Depends on the group. If it's a small group of likeminded people, yes. Otherwise, the conflicting ideologies will tear the "society" to shreds.

II.
Yes, in my opinion... just look at firearms.

III.
What the fuck? Guys, making obscure and esoteric statements just for shits and giggles doesn't make you intelligent.

IV.
Murderer. No matter who it is, if someone was trying to kill me, my affection for them would no longer be.

V.
Though it might sound like it conflicts with my response to IV, I think it's more important to ensure, at the very least, the opportunity to thrive for your children.

 

[Patton89]

If someone points a loaded pistol at you,with the intent to kill, and you shoot him first, yes it still is murder. But it is however, "logical murder" in the sense that you are trying to survive. But it is still murder. This is the nature of humans, as people will blame themselves for it. I know i would, even if there was no logical reason to do so.

And, no i cant really say that my life in the end has more value than some elses. It would boil down to if my instinct of survival would kick in, or would i hesitate because i can understand that.

SO yes, humans are selfish, but it is simply instinct, that was necessary 10000 years ago, and might be necessary even today in some situations. In the end, if people have to choose between surviving, or dying by the hands of someone or for someone they do NOT know, they will most likely try to survive themselves.


But people can still "override" the "selfish" instinct of survival, and there are cases of people doing it, by risking their lives in desperate attempts to save others, and sometimes dying because of it.
Of course, if they have to choose between themselves or the offspring, or a close person, then they will most likely choose offspring or close person.

There are no simple awnsers.

 

[Oeolycus]

PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS:

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?

Irrelevant.

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?

Irrelevant.

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing."

Irrelevant and true.

IV. Murderer or Murdered?

Huh?

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?

Irrelevant--no way of telling until it's too late.

And who picks a handle like Lepidus? He's certainly one of the least dignified of third wheels in history. At least Crassus found death in battle (even if it was to the Parthians). He's not even criminal like Alcibiades! He's just worthless! Is it because it sounds like leper? It sounds more like tepid-us to me.

 

[Dies Mali]

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?

No not really

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?

Function governs structure.

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing." (True? False? Somewhere in between?)

The first step to know IS to know that you dont know.

IV. Murderer or Murdered?

Better to be cause. Murderer

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?

Make tomorrow better for the kids

 

[Blakut]

Yet it is ilogical in long run, as you will end up LIMITING the gene pool, harming the devolopment of your own species in the long run. Also you will increase the likely hood of your own death.

It's not limiting the gene pool. You're thinning out the competition. Inner-species competition is very brutal most of the time. Some animals do live in herds, but most of them compete for resources: right from the start, the cub that is too weak to get enough food dies, his siblings will eat his food and him too with no remorse.

The genes inside each individual want to survive, not the species. Individuals come together only if this means that his own chances of survival are increased. If inside a group of a peaceful species emerged a mutation, one that made an individual aggressive, he would most certainly be at an advantage over his fellow animals of the same species. When he wants some food, or to mate, all the aggressive individual has to do is show his teeth or attack, and he'll get what he wants. But that means that the aggressive genes will spread, his children will have an advantage over the whole population. Soon enough, the population would eb composed of lots of violent aggressive individuals. But now, the advantage is lost: if an aggressive individual tries to use force to get waht he wants, chances are he would get attacked back. The initial advantage is lost. A non aggresive individual, who doesn;t attack to get what he-it wants is now at an advantage.

 

[Ashmo]

Wait, those aren't philosophical at all. They're rather easy.

I. Can anarchy exist without chaos?

No, but this really depends on how you define chaos. The mere lack of structure would equal my definition of chaos, but there's nothing problematic with that kind of chaos.

II. Have humans developed technology before developing the ability to use it wisely?

Yes. Because you don't need to be wise in order to be smart. Finding out how fire works doesn't require you to realise that setting ANYTHING on fire isn't necessarily a brilliant idea in the long run. I don't think "humans" as a whole will ever be wise in that sense.

III. "The one thing that I know is that I know nothing." (True? False? Somewhere in between?)

True if you mean it. The only problem with that statement stems from a narrow-minded, tight-assed, literalist interpretation of its meaning.

"The one thing I know is that..." is equivalent to any other phrase such as "I have realised that..." or "I have arrived at the conclusion that...".

IV. Murderer or Murdered?

Murderer. No problem either as long as you don't make the unrealistic assumption that EVERYONE will ALWAYS murder, just because they'd rather murder than be murdered.

V. Is it better to survive today or make tomorrow better for your children?

Obviously you should prepare for the survival of your offspring. There's no dilemma here: any act that would "make tomorrow better for your children" but result in a negative long-term prospect would obviously have failed at making tomorrow better.

 

[Lepidus]

I think you're confusing sophistry and philosophy, there.

Sophistry is a type of philosophy, you know.

And who picks a handle like Lepidus? He's certainly one of the least dignified of third wheels in history. At least Crassus found death in battle (even if it was to the Parthians). He's not even criminal like Alcibiades! He's just worthless! Is it because it sounds like leper? It sounds more like tepid-us to me.

Oi! Catch up on your classical politics. I allude not to the triumvir Lepidus, but the CONSUL Lepidus, who founded one of the greatest and most used roads in Italy (in fact, modern Italians still use the road that mid 100's BC Lepidus founded during his rule). Also, I would like to say that rather, I choose Lepidus for its Latin meaning, "clever" -along with twelve other meanings I do not wish to bring up for time's sake-.

Anyhow, I just wanted to clear some things up with my questions on Socratean philosophy and technology, respectively.

When Socrates declared his ignorance of the true workings of the world with the quote I brought up, he meant that there was no way of proving -or disproving, for that matter- that our senses don't decieve us and that everything we perceive is not a fabrication of our minds, which I was hoping would be discussed.

On technology, I meant technology such as automated projectile weaponry and nuclear atomics.

 

[Patton89]

Sophistry is what we had before Philosophy.
Just nagging.

IS the world simply a creation of our minds ?
As interesting as that is, in the end, it is a matter if we want to end up inside a unsolvable situation. Only way to verify anything is to observe, but we cant observe, because it could be false, simply a delusion. We cant ponder,or think about it as it could be false, fabricated by our own mind, as if it is capable creating a world, it is deceit inside ones mind, and even thinking is impossible,as the awnsers could be just as false as the world we observe.
No way of proving anything , no way of finding awnser. I consider the entire premise of the "is the world just a fabrication of mind ?" nothing more than a cheap trick, a joke, a prank created to have the final laugh. It is unsolvable. Anything you think, can be false, anything you see can be false. We could waste centuries debating and discussing, and we wouldnt make any progress.

If we take away observing, we might as well take away thinking.
As we cant observe,at all, we cant think about anything but the lack of capability to observe.

But i doubt my mind is capable of creating such a detailed world. Brain has only so much "power".