Ask a Philosophy Guy!

trigs

GTA Poker;367420 wroteI didn't have time to read the last post (#mustgogabbbbbbappppppo), but regarding the mind/mental/belief aspect of things...I am agnostic. I went under general anesthesia for the first time 2 years ago (after performing 1000s of GAs on pets) and I have to say that the experience of zero recollection and zero knowledge of the flow of time from induction to being awake really makes you think that absolute nothing is a distinct possibility.

I have taken fairly advances courses in physics/astrophysics/math, etc...(I used to be smart) and I still cannot grasp how existence can stem from nothing...no matter how many equations you throw at it or how infinitesimally close we can get to the moment of the big bang.

i'm not an expert at physics, but i've read some because i find it fascinating. it is so crazy to think of the beginning of time (and whatever the hell was before that!?). it's funny how physics has taught us about the theory of the big bang, but as we get closer and closer to when the big band actually happened, all of physics starts to break down and doesn't function properly. hence, we can't explain the specifics of the big bang (i think they can explain up to milliseconds after it, but there's a bunch of issues still and a lot of missing info).

the whole concept of "something from nothing" is a big issue in philosophy. some philosophers argue that god was always there so he created the "something" (i.e. god as the initial cause). there are also theories that suggest that the big bang is a reoccurring event and that eventually the whole of the universe will begin to shrink and contract again all the way down to an infinitesimal spot and then explode all over again (and allegedly this has happened before according to some). there's also the multiverse theory as well which is crazy, but a lot of scientists are starting to lean in that direction i believe (i.e. an infinite amount of universes exist and are layered on top of each other).

When it comes down to it my core belief is something along the lines of we all die, try and have some interesting and enjoyable experiences while we are "here" and I partially believe that life is not even possible. It's nice to have distractions like poker to stop the thinking.

hear, hear! find something you enjoy and get to enjoying it while you can! i agree that distractions are great. i do warn against constant distraction though in life. you need a balance imo.

trigs

GTA Poker;367421 wroteI'm not sure where this fits in...but...Trigs, do you feel that we all had equal possibilities of being born anywhere on this planet. Were you just fortunate to be born in a first world society and could you just of easily have been born starving in Ethiopia?

I do feel that where we were born is completely random. This is one of the main reasons why I have big issues with extreme nationalism/patriotism and things like jingoism (patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policies). Being proud of your home country is one thing, but claiming that your country is the best in the world, that your citizens are the best in the world, and that your culture is the best in the world is just stupid noise imo.

I fall pretty far to the left on the political spectrum (I settle on voting NDP because there isn’t really a more left leaning party to choose from in Canada. Sorry Green Party, but no). I do think that the amount of privatization of space is very problematic and the problem is getting worse all the time. It used to be just issues over land. Then it became ocean space. Then we expanded on claiming airspace and, hey why not, let’s claim that other planet as ours too.

Drawing arbitrary lines to divide us just causes more harm than good. It creates what cultural studies theorists refer to as “othering”. Citizens of one country are taught to think of those from other countries as so different to the point that they must be forced to evaluate the difference. This leads to judgments, biases, and stereotypes between humans who are all still humans as far as I’m concerned. It forces people to create a false dichotomy of “us vs. them”. (One example of this is what Edward? Saide called “orientalism” in which the western countries stereotype and pretty much mock and gawk at people from the “orient”). We can obviously see examples of this between countries, but it’s even observable in smaller areas such as between states in the US, for example.

Now, I’m not saying that there are no differences between countries and cultures, but from a basic perspective of human vs. human, there really isn’t any difference. I am very thankful to be born in Canada which I see as a great country – probably one of the best. The best? Hells no. We have a long way to go to achieve that status.

trigs

Milo;367423 wroteThe thought that Pkrfce9 could have been born as a Filipino ladyboy is DEEPLY disturbing . . . LOCK THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY.

lmao!

SuitedPair

trigs;367322 wroteNice! I like it SuitedPair!

Okay, first an explanation of the concept “will to power”.

.
.
.
.
. Apparently German philosopher Alfred Baeumler took Nietzsche’s concept and described it as “Hitler prophecy”.

Well thought out answer.

I would have said constantine or mohamed myself or the grand daddy of them all Abraham. but again they both just rehashed the sumarian/egyptian stories and magnified it with the teachings of plato so it might be the original civilization cascading it's beliefs down through the ages.

SuitedPair

Milo;367423 wroteThe thought that Pkrfce9 could have been born as a Filipino ladyboy is DEEPLY disturbing . . . LOCK THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY.

and in an alternate multiverse is your husband....... yeah, this is getting out of hand....

SuitedPair

Is it ironic that Hobbes (not our hobbes) who said life is "nasty brutish and short" lived to 91 at a time where average lifespan was 55 (if you lived past 16, 35 if you took the whole population of England) or still relevant when we consider that the world has existed for 4.6ish billion years and the universe for another 10ish before that?

and where the f@#$ is hobbes? with a handle like that he should be all over this thread (Calvinism?)

trigs

I know nobody asked, and this thread is probably dead already (i loved it while it lasted!!), but I wanted to make at least one more post about morality since I feel it’s an extremely important aspect of our lives yet most people don’t ever think about it at all. Before I get into the specific theories, I want to present a couple situations for us to consider. Please keep in mind that these are functioning as thought experiments (i.e. these situations are not meant to be necessarily realistic; they are just meant to get you to consider the moral implications of your actions).

This first one is usually referred to as the trolley problem. There is a runaway train speeding down the tracks that cannot be stopped in any way. Further down there are 3 people tied to the track. These people will surely die if the train is not stopped. You are standing next to the track between the train and the 3 people. Next to you is a switch that can divert the train off its track to a side track. However, as it turns out, there is 1 person tied to this track as well. Therefore, if you hit the switch in order to save the 3 people, you will kill this 1 person, but if you do nothing, the 3 people will die. So, what do you do?

The second situation is a counter example to the one above (that I believe my prof just made up, but I could be wrong). You are the world’s greatest surgeon and you’re on an airplane that is flying over the middle of the ocean (i.e. nowhere to land). Suddenly, three different passengers fall over and start dying. Each of them desperately needs an organ transplant in order to survive. Well, it just so happens that there is 1 man who is sleeping on the plane who has the three exact perfectly functioning organs that the 3 men need. So, do you do nothing and let the 3 men die, or do you do the surgery by killing the 1 man and using his organs to save the other 3 men?

I’ll just post these scenarios first and I’ll write up some theoretical positions separately.

trigs

Where does your sense of morality come from? Does your religion govern your morality? Do you just follow whatever your parents taught you? Do you just do whatever “feels right”? There are many different morality systems out there, but I’m going to discuss three of the big ones (Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, and basic utilitarianism).

According to Aristotle, there are 9 virtues (which include wisdom (the highest virtue), temperance, justice, prudence, courage, etc.). Moreover, each virtue is sandwiched between two opposing vices. For example, the virtue of courage is in the centre between the vices of cowardliness and rashness. Every time a person is faced with a moral decision, they must consider all these possible virtues. Aristotle argued that the morally right decision in any situation was the one that espoused the most virtues possible.

Consider our first scenario mentioned above (the trolley example). In this situation, Aristotle would argue that one would have to weigh one’s actions based on all the virtues. That is, would flipping the switch show temperance? Would it portray prudence? Justice?

Already we can probably see some big problems with this system. First off, who decides on how the virtues are presented in the moral decision? Maybe I think the action isn’t courageous, but the next guy thinks it is. Also, how do we rank the virtues? If the decision is courageous, but it’s really, really not providing justice, does one outweigh the other? Furthermore, as Aristotle pointed out, each virtue is surrounded by vices so even hitting the virtue right on (which is our goal) is very difficult. Overall, Aristotle’s virtue ethics seems very problematic.

Now let’s consider Kant’s categorical imperative position on morality. According to Kant, we as humans have a necessary obligation to act a certain way. The term categorical imperative means an absolute, unconditional requirement (i.e. a duty). Kant explains it this way: “Act only according to that maxim [or rule] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Let’s consider an example to explain this more clearly.

Kant offers up the example of making a promise. He argues that when one makes a promise they must necessarily mean to keep the promise they made. If one makes a promise with the intention of not keeping it Kant argues that the whole system would fail if everyone were to act that way (i.e. that thinking became universal). Hence, if making a promise and intending on not keeping the promise (lying) became a universal law (i.e. everyone acted this way), there would be no such thing as promises as everyone would know that when you make a promise you are just lying and you have no duty to keep it. Hence, lying about keeping a promise would be morally wrong according to Kant.

The second main part of Kant’s moral theory focuses on human’s freedom and autonomy. He argued that people are not allowed to use others as “simply means to an end”. Using someone in this way limits or removes their freedom and autonomy, he argued, and therefore it is morally wrong to treat someone in such a way.

I personally love Kant’s theory, but it still has its major issues. For example, it follows from Kant’s argument that if a murderer asked you what the location of his next wanted victim is you would have a duty to tell the murderer the truth (this was a counter argument presented to Kant and he completely agreed with it but said it doesn’t weaken his moral theory). Again, this theory presents some big problems in making moral decisions.

Finally, let’s consider utilitarianism. Basically, utilitarians believe that we must be considering all the possible consequences when making a moral decision (hence it is a type of consequentialism). Furthermore, we must be attempting to produce the most utility, or good, in making our moral decisions. Whichever decision produces the most possible good for the most amount people is the morally right decision.

Similar to the other two theories, this one also has some big issues with it. First off, there can easily be consequences that we cannot possibly foresee, and just because we can’t think of them doesn’t mean they don’t count. Second, how can we rank “goodness”? Some utilitarians literally talk about “units of goodness”, but actually counting and tallying the amount of goodness a decision will achieve is practically impossible. (So I hold the door for you – plus one unit of goodness? I save your life – plus ten units of goodness? Who knows?) Third, where do you draw the line of creating the most possible amount of goodness? Perhaps charging into the government and killing the current Prime Minister would in fact yield the greatest amount of goodness compared to not killing him. According to utilitarianism, you would be obligated to kill the Prime Minister then!

(Consider further examples of donating to charity. How much should you donate? Wouldn’t donating more just help more people? Where do you draw the line? Utilitarianism would argue that if you could give more and you are not then you are acting immorally.)

Considering the trolley example again, utilitarians would not really have a big problem with it. Obviously you must hit the switch and actively kill the one man while saving the three because saving three lives creates more good than saving just one life. However, what if the one man is a scientific genius and if he lives he will create a machine that will be able to produce infinite amounts of power that will solve the world’s energy crisis? Well then, we must necessarily kill the three men and save the one guy since he staying alive and creating this machine will achieve more goodness than keeping the three other men alive who don’t end up doing anything to benefit humanity. There are so many issues to consider.

My overall point is this: morality itself is very questionable, and even from the best attempts from some of the greatest minds in our history, an overarching moral system seems very difficult to theorize (let alone practice). The fact that the majority of people do not even consider such perspectives at all in making moral decisions on a daily basis is just plain nuts imho. If acting moral for you is doing what you think your religion would expect, or doing whatever just “feels” right, I beg you wholeheartedly to re-evaluate your moral position and find an actual basis for your morality (easier said than done but the reflection and the process is what’s necessary). Not only will you learn about yourself and your inner motivations, but you’ll become a better person – I promise!

Milo

trigs;367865 wroteI know nobody asked, and this thread is probably dead already (i loved it while it lasted!!), but I wanted to make at least one more post about morality since I feel it’s an extremely important aspect of our lives yet most people don’t ever think about it at all. Before I get into the specific theories, I want to present a couple situations for us to consider. Please keep in mind that these are functioning as thought experiments (i.e. these situations are not meant to be necessarily realistic; they are just meant to get you to consider the moral implications of your actions).

This first one is usually referred to as the trolley problem. There is a runaway train speeding down the tracks that cannot be stopped in any way. Further down there are 3 people tied to the track. These people will surely die if the train is not stopped. You are standing next to the track between the train and the 3 people. Next to you is a switch that can divert the train off its track to a side track. However, as it turns out, there is 1 person tied to this track as well. Therefore, if you hit the switch in order to save the 3 people, you will kill this 1 person, but if you do nothing, the 3 people will die. So, what do you do?

I was wondering when this would come up . . . I switch lanes killing one rather than three. Assuming there is no way weaseling out (ie you MUST make a decision), then I can justify the one death as the lesser of two evils, and feel comfortable with that decision.

The second situation is a counter example to the one above (that I believe my prof just made up, but I could be wrong). You are the world’s greatest surgeon and you’re on an airplane that is flying over the middle of the ocean (i.e. nowhere to land). Suddenly, three different passengers fall over and start dying. Each of them desperately needs an organ transplant in order to survive. Well, it just so happens that there is 1 man who is sleeping on the plane who has the three exact perfectly functioning organs that the 3 men need. So, do you do nothing and let the 3 men die, or do you do the surgery by killing the 1 man and using his organs to save the other 3 men?

Oddly enough, those three folks are going to die. I am not as comfortable being the active ingredient (so to speak) in that innocent person's death simply to harvest his organs. not really explaining myself well, I grant you, but there it is. Something about it does not sit right.

I’ll just post these scenarios first and I’ll write up some theoretical positions separately.

I did not read your novella before responding.

Big Mike

I agree with Milo on his responses; and I'm also posting this before reading the explanation post.

Since I must choose between killing 1 innocent person by my action or killing 3 by inaction I will choose the lesser.

In the second I will not initiate aggression against an innocent person. My moral code derives largely from "love your neighbor as yourself". If I were the guy with three healthy organs I would not want to be killed. If I were one of the dying men I would not want an unwilling man killed to save me. I do not fear death.

Now, if I as the surgeon had the time to awaken the man and ask him his permission to harvest his organs, I would perform the surgery if it were granted. The man owns himself.

Valar morghulis.

trigs

interesting read i came across today:

The Philosophy Of Suicide

trigs

this is about the UK, but it's the same thing that's going on in north america as well:

Philosophy is not religion. It must not be taught that way | Charlie Duncan Saffrey | Comment is free | theguardian.com

But there is a broader danger than this. Philosophy – the vibrant, engaging, and often controversial practice of subjecting all concepts and ideas to rigorous logical scrutiny – has struggled for many years to be properly understood as a discipline apart from religious studies. And yet, philosophy is absolutely crucial for a proper questioning of the assumptions we make about government and about our lives in general.

trigs

trigs;367131 wrotei should also mention that i personally have issues with the olympics in general. i do think that healthy, friendly sporting competitions between nations is a good idea in general. however, i think the amount of work, money, manpower, etc. that goes into the olympics is tragic (no better word for it). quick example: 2008 beijing - $43 billion, 2012 london - $40 billion, 2004 athens - $14 billion, 2000 syndey - $5 billion. we're talking BILLIONS here people. now i like sports, but some part of me feels that at least some of this money could be put to a better use.

yeah olympics! screw the poor (and the gays)!

As you sit on your couch next month and watch the luge, ponder this: The Sochi Olympic Games are costing a whopping $50 billion — reportedly more than all of the previous Winter Games combined.

The Prophet 22

trigs;368357 wroteyeah olympics! screw the poor (and the gays)!

Hey you should be happy they realized Communism didn't work and bought into capitalism. And how does hosting the Olympics screws the gays exactly? Does that mean the Pan Am Games 2015 in Toronto are screwing the gays? BTW. Not having the Olympics won't change Putin's mind about gay rights in Russia.

Let me ask you, were you this outage raged over the Beijing games that I chose to boycott? And will you boycott these games?

Prophet22

trigs

The Prophet 22;368360 wroteHey you should be happy they realized Communism didn't work and bought into capitalism.

meh, i don't like capitalism. i feel like i could possibly put an argument together that shows that its worse than communism.

And how does hosting the Olympics screws the gays exactly?

just a reference to all the gay rights crap in russia that the world is (kind of) supporting with the olympics. obviously, it's not that simple though.

BTW. Not having the Olympics won't change Putin's mind about gay rights in Russia.

if everyone boycotted the olympics because of it, it probably wouldn't change his mind i agree, but it would still send a positive message to the rest of the homophobic, gay-bashing world of morons.

Let me ask you, were you this outage raged over the Beijing games that I chose to boycott? And will you boycott these games?

i have been boycotting the olympics for years. haven't watched any of it for probably around a decade.

Milo

trigs;368364 wrotemeh, i don't like capitalism. i feel like i could possibly put an argument together that shows that its worse than communism.

I would take that bet. You might be able to do so in a conceptual sense but, as a practical matter, nothing has lifted more people out of poverty and misery than capitalism. Capitalism combined with liberty is what allows us to prosper.

just a reference to all the gay rights crap in russia that the world is (kind of) supporting with the olympics. obviously, it's not that simple though.
if everyone boycotted the olympics because of it, it probably wouldn't change his mind i agree, but it would still send a positive message to the rest of the homophobic, gay-bashing world of morons.

Really?!? I doubt it. The hateful and bigoted are not that way due to any logic or reasoning, any more than the Nazis had reason to target the Jews, Gypsies, etc. It is about "the other", and about needing to demonize that "other" in order to bolster your own shaky legitimacy.

i have been boycotting the olympics for years. haven't watched any of it for probably around a decade.

How much did the boycott of the Moscow Games help the Afghans? Not much . . . but giving them SAM launchers sure changed things in a hurry.

compuease

Milo;368370 wroteHow much did the boycott of the Moscow Games help the Afghans? Not much . . . but giving them SAM launchers sure changed things in a hurry.

So are you saying we arm all those of another persuasion with SAM's? Hmm. might be interesting...

Milo

No . . . I am saying that boycotts of this type are exercises in theatre . . . like clicking "like" on Facebook. The person feels like they have "done something" to assist the issue when, in reality, they have done nothing at all.

That said, if you wish to send me a Stinger missile system, I would give it a good home . . . at least until the next "bad beat".

Big Mike

trigs;368364 wrotemeh, i don't like capitalism. i feel like i could possibly put an argument together that shows that its worse than communism.

This to me shows you don't really understand capitalism. I feel like I could possibly put an argument together that shows capitalism is the only moral economic system.

trigs

Big Mike;368393 wroteThis to me shows you don't really understand capitalism. I feel like I could possibly put an argument together that shows capitalism is the only moral economic system.

lol, the only moral system?!? oh man, i'd love to hear this one. i'll start working on how it's pure evil and we can match them up later (or you can wait until i'm done and then rip it apart or vice versa if that's easier).

EDIT: btw Big Mike, may i ask what your educational background is? am i getting into a debate with an expert lol? i'm still up for it, mind you, but just curious. i'm no political philosophy expert i'll admit, but i do feel like i have an above average understanding on the subject.

EDIT 2: is it strange that i'm terribly excited about this now? probably.

« Previous Page Next Page »