Philosophical Debate Thread - What is the meaning of everything?
205 replies, posted
my automerge
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27115904]I did. If my objective is to have the most sentient beings survive and I only had 2 choices then by basic math I did the right thing[/QUOTE]
That's not an argument based upon scientific principles. I would gather you are using a system of ethics that values the life of sentient beings as utterly important, and as such every action taken must be done in order to keep the largest amount of sentient beings alive. How does this correspond with science, in your view?
We can take a look at biology to give us a hint, wherein we see that creatures are biologically driven to reproduce, thus creating more sentient beings in the case of humans. But even then, we can argue that biology does not in fact "care" whether or not there is more or less sentient beings, as nature just occurs due to physical laws and processes. Maybe it would be better to focus on a subset of biology, which would be psychology and sociology.
As these "philosophy of science" individuals seem to assert, psychology can be used to figure out an organism and essentially break down its behavior and the ways that it acts. As such, we can find out what causes pleasure and pain, what causes different thoughts and actions. We could then use this information, but how? Saying that we want to create the largest amount of happiness creates a mix of ethics (Utilitarianism) and biology (psychology), and thus we don't get pure science.
The above are simply ideas that probably have quite a bit of holes in them, both scientifically and philosophically. As you can see, we don't have the required knowledge of scientific principles yet to be able to derive the perfect solution to this dilemma (And we may never have the knowledge), and even if we did have the knowledge the way we used it would be dictated by our philosophical principles.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
[I]"We know through tests that science can answer questions."[/I]
Yes, it can answer questions. But that is irrelevant, because the tests that have been done cannot be generalized to assume that science can answer every question.
[I]"Because my goal was to have the most sentient being survive."[/I]
Yes, but that's a goal that you ended up with using some form of subjective system of thought. A scientific explanation requires more than such an answer.
I understand that really nothing is important but I understand that everyone is like me. because of this they would technically deserve as much as I do.
Its not that hard to get.
I can use the scientific method to find the best way to make sure that the least amount of people are treated unfairly.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27116138]
I can use the scientific method to find the best way to make sure that the least amount of people are treated unfairly.[/QUOTE]
Go ahead. Get your chalk out.
[U]"I understand that really nothing is important but I understand that everyone is like me"[/U]
How do you get to that reasoning? What do you mean that nothing is important? Everyone is like you, what do you mean? I would say that as human beings we value things and find things as important (but on the other hand, I don't think many would say that anything is objectively important). Everyone is not like you, unless you mean that everyone is a human being.
[U]
"I can use the scientific method to find the best way to make sure that the least amount of people are treated unfairly."[/U]
Fine, you can use the scientific method within this experiment, and you may eventually find what the best way to make sure people are treated unfairly. Of course, this is not very likely as our scientific possibilities (A.I and virtual reality- cannot be used in this scenario as our technical capacity is not advanced enough) is limited and you cannot account for every person in the planet or every possible scenario.
And to top it off, you ended the argument with a philosophical argument; which is absolutely nonsensical given your previous answer (You shoulda' stuck with the sentient being route of thought!). Yet again, where did you get the need to have the least amount of unfairness? I don't remember reading that biological laws dictated that fairness exist in society. I don't remember a theory being created by scientists that proved that the best avenue in all situations would be to have the max amount of fairness, and even then how do you decide what the best avenue is? And even then, who are we humans, with our limited knowledge of the universe and its laws, to decide what the objective and universal way of dealing with such a situation should be? As such, we get to a philosophical quandary that many different systems of thoughts have given their answers to (all subjective, what a surprise!).
Hell, do a coin toss to decide... if you want it to be fair. But is that even fair?
[QUOTE=DemonDog;27115910][img_thumb]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/256/philosophyj.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Although I believe in God, I agree with the "make meaning in what you do" part of this
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27116331][U]"I understand that really nothing is important but I understand that everyone is like me"[/U]
How do you get to that reasoning? What do you mean that nothing is important?[/QUOTE]
I mean there is no universal meaning besides cause and effect of course.
When say everyone is like me I say nobody has more meaning then me and nobody is more universally important. I also mean that everyone is sentient.
"Fine, you can use the scientific method within this experiment, and you may eventually find what the best way to make sure people are treated unfairly. Of course, this is not very likely as our scientific possibilities (A.I and virtual reality- cannot be used in this scenario as our technical capacity is not advanced enough) is limited and you cannot account for every person in the planet or every possible scenario." sure I might not be able to be sure but I can be the closest to making sure everyone is equal as possible.
"where did you get the need to have the least amount of unfairness?" the reason why its morally good is because like I said before people arnt better then each other in a universal sense.
here is an example. I dont want the earth to explode because im on it and people like I like are on it. since I like life its not that hard to think that other people also like life and im able to understand that.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27116452]I mean there is no universal meaning besides cause and effect of course.
When say everyone is like me I say nobody has more meaning then me and nobody is more universally important. I also mean that everyone is sentient.
"Fine, you can use the scientific method within this experiment, and you may eventually find what the best way to make sure people are treated unfairly. Of course, this is not very likely as our scientific possibilities (A.I and virtual reality- cannot be used in this scenario as our technical capacity is not advanced enough) is limited and you cannot account for every person in the planet or every possible scenario." sure I might not be able to be sure but I can be the closest to making sure everyone is equal as possible.
"where did you get the need to have the least amount of unfairness?" the reason why its morally good is because like I said before people arnt better then each other in a universal sense.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you wish to argue that way then you can say that through our study of biology we can establish that one organism is not of higher objective "value" than another organism. It can all be boiled down to atoms, as I said before. But then again, nature does not differentiate, yet you wish to say that everyone should be treated fairly. Why is that needed? It's simply the injection of an ethical system in a scientific construct. "Morally good" is a philosophical statement, which you attempt to support through the usage of an allusion to a biological reality, but you have a severe missing link as to where you actually got the whole "fairness" aspect.
You are only serving to prove that science is a tool which can give us enough data and understanding from where we can explore different ethical/philosophical avenues in order to make different decisions. Whether those end decisions are "bad" or "good" would not be something scientific studies can prove to us (unless you wish to argue for a creator or that this reality has been designed with a purpose in mind), but ethical systems of thought can each provide their own views of the matter. Philosophy and the sciences are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.
[U]"here is an example. I dont want the earth to explode because im on it and people like I like are on it. since I like life its not that hard to think that other people also like life and im able to understand that. "[/U]
Do you want me to build your support for every sentence you make? You might be able to actually use the biological basis of wanting to survive to make that decision of why you don't want the earth to explode, and it would be a fine reason. That would be a reason guided by a scientific reason, but it is not to say that you cannot also use ethical systems to also answer it, and in possibly greater detail. All that bullshit about "liking life" and etc. is irrelevant by the way.
There is no meaning to life
Nevermind, FP was acting all crazy for a few seconds there.
If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know?
If the #2 pencil is so popular, why is it still #2?
Why do banks charge you a "non-sufficient funds" fee on money they already know you don't have?
Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
If the pen is mightier than the sword, and a picture is worth a thousand words, how dangerous is a fax?
How is it possible to have a civil war?
Can you be a closet claustrophobic?
[QUOTE=lavacano;27116831]If the #2 pencil is so popular, why is it still #2?[/QUOTE]
It's a number 2 pencil because of the hardness of the lead.
[QUOTE=lavacano;27116831]Why do banks charge you a "non-sufficient funds" fee on money they already know you don't have?[/QUOTE]
Because you'll have to take a loan to pay off that fee.
How do you think that people get rich?
Absurdism
No inherent meaning in life, at least nothing we can understand
Instead what we do defines us and our lives.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27116544]Philosophy and the sciences are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.
[/QUOTE]
That would only work if you considered philophy a science. You will admit that a moral question can be answered with science. here is an example (again) should you beat your children. well the reason why someone would want to do that is so there children behave and grow up to be good. well tests have shown that that hurts your kids in the long run so it would be bad to do that. now the reason why we like are kids is because they are genetically like us, we put a lot of energy into making them, because we spent a lot of time with them and because we can shape them. It makes logical scientific sense why we like them. I already explained why no one is technically better then another and technically everyone would deserve what we deserve.
we can make are own goals and use science to accomplish them. science can also tell us if are goals are good or not.
I have made my case piggy, I don't think that any further explanation will make you understand my viewpoint. As for what you are saying, you are mixing up several different areas of study, as I have said and pointed out before, and yet you still attribute it to a pure science. I am sorry, but I do not wish to continue this never ending analysis of a person relying upon subjective methods of thinking and yet claiming that they are being objective through some obscure usage of alleged scientific methods.
That type of "debate" just doesn't float my boat bro.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27117306]I have made my case piggy, I don't think that any further explanation will make you understand my viewpoint. As for what you are saying, you are mixing up several different areas of study, as I have said and pointed out before, and yet you still attribute it to a pure science. I am sorry, but I do not wish to continue this never ending analysis of a person relying upon subjective methods of thinking and yet claiming that they are being objective through some obscure usage of alleged scientific methods.
That type of "debate" just doesn't float my boat bro.[/QUOTE]
I debated your cases. you originally said morality cant be scientifically chosen as good or bad. I gave examples of how you are wrong. I also explained why we have morality and every tiem you said the same thing but really just watch this [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html[/url]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27117431]I debated your cases. you originally said morality cant be scientifically chosen as good or bad. I gave examples of how you are wrong. I also explained why we have morality and every tiem you said the same thing but really just watch this [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Sure, I understand you debated me. I'm just not sure we were on the same page throughout the whole time, semantics can often complicate things and without us establishing a level understanding of the material we can't really effectively reach some sort of conclusion. Either way, I'll look at that video when I have some spare time and I'll see what it's all about.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27117745]Sure, I understand you debated me. I'm just not sure we were on the same page throughout the whole time, semantics can often complicate things and without us establishing a level understanding of the material we can't really effectively reach some sort of conclusion. Either way, I'll look at that video when I have some spare time and I'll see what it's all about.[/QUOTE]
I was wondering when it was going to end, legit college level philosophy doesn't debate well with general highschool knowledge (or atleast that's what I assume piggy to be coming from).
[QUOTE=Turnips5;27111805]I'm going to ask again : are you serious when you ask this question? Or are you trying to ask something else?
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
Because the answer lies in physics, not philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Philosophy is more concerned with the phenomlogical state of colour, rather than it's physical properties. It's a lot more complicated than that.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=LF9000;27112417]C and G are "heavenly" because their frequencies are in a 2:3 ratio.
Do some research next time.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't even begin to explain the phenomology of music.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
are we supposed to believe 2:3 ratios are necessarily the same thing as heavenliness?
[QUOTE=Asphyxia;27119064]I was wondering when it was going to end, legit college level philosophy doesn't debate well with general highschool knowledge (or atleast that's what I assume piggy to be coming from).[/QUOTE]
We wernt talking about a specific philosophy we were talking about if philosophy could be based off of science and was on more of the basics of philosophy. knowing anything about philosophy would allow you to debate this and would have nothing to do with reading specific philosophical text.
now unlike what Kontradaz thinks I do think that morals can come from logic and do have a scientific logical reason for being held. thinking killing is wrong will stop people from being killed including you.
a moral can also be wrong and shown it (like my example) while I do not know the answer to every moral question I know that the answer is findable,(or at least seen for its worth) something that Kontradaz does not believe. I dont think you understand what we were talking about or else you wouldnt post that. even though I will probably get box3es because we are in a thread about philosophy and a lot of people think that philosophy is some magic thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119251]We wernt talking about a specific philosophy we were talking about if philosophy could be based off of science and was on more of the basics of philosophy. knowing anything about philosophy would allow you to debate this and would have nothing to do with reading specific philosophical text.
now unlike what Kontradaz thinks I do think that morals can come from logic and do have a scientific logical reason for being held. thinking killing is wrong will stop people from being killed including you.
a moral can also be wrong and shown it (like my example) while I do not know the answer to every moral question I know that the answer is findable,(or at least seen for its worth) something that Kontradaz does not believe. I dont think you understand what we were talking about or else you wouldnt post that.[/QUOTE]
Thinking killing is wrong will not stop you from being killed. In fact, killing is one of the things we do to survive.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27113745]You know you can use logic in order to base laws on.
All you have to do is ask what a laws are for and use logic in order to find the best way accomplish the goal that the law is trying to do.[/QUOTE]
Then how do you decide which goals are worth persuing without philosophy? I don't think laws and morality can exist without philosophy of some description.
There is no necessary purpose or meaning for anything. That is left to one to determine his- or herself. To live one's everyday life, it is not necessary to fully understand everything or to be certain that there actually is such an all-inclusive purpose. Live your life, go about your day, and make actions that you'll be able to look back on in a few decades with thankfulness and satisfaction toward such an open-minded lifestyle.
[QUOTE=frost13s;27119262]Thinking killing is wrong will not stop you from being killed. In fact, killing is one of the things we do to survive.[/QUOTE]
having the people around you think killing is wrong will stop you from being killed.
Its also why we think rape is wrong.
Most people dont like being raped so we see it as morally wrong and it helps.
Science is more about observing the universe in quite a superficial way, while philosophy is the art of taking all these observations, intrinsic and extrinsic, and logically finding answers to questions that can't be measured empirically. I'd argue that science by itself doesn't answer [i]anything[/i].
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119272]Then how do you decide which goals are worth persuing without philosophy? I don't think laws and morality can exist without philosophy of some description.[/QUOTE]
Like I said before. you like living and you know that others like living. we can work together to find a way to live longer.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119295]Like I said before. you like living and you know that others like living. we can work together to find a way to live longer.[/QUOTE]
What, so the whole of morality is based on living the longest? That's a very bold claim.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119283]having the people around you think killing is wrong will stop you from being killed.
Its also why we think rape is wrong.
Most people dont like being raped so we see it as morally wrong and it helps.[/QUOTE]
Killing is not universally wrong though, it doesn't apply to everyone/everything
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119307]What, so the whole of morality is based on living the longest? That's a very bold claim.[/QUOTE]
what? no thats just an example
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=frost13s;27119308]Killing is not universally wrong though, it doesn't apply to everyone/everything[/QUOTE]
you mean culturally. yes some cultures allow you to kill things that could threaten the culture.
That could be explained by memetics.
I dont see any use in killing unless you must because I can understand that the person the culture wants dead is only that way because the culture doesnt understand how environment effects people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.