Ask a Philosophy Guy!
since i love discussing all different kinds of philosophical topics, but rarely get a chance to do so, i'm offerring up my *ahem* "expertise" to anyone who has an interesting question to ask or situation to discuss. i will answer and discuss to the best of my abilities, or i'll joke and mock you depending on my mood.
some possible topics include: metaphysics (the study of the fundamental nature of being and the world), morality and ethics, epistemology (the study of knowledge), philosophy of the mind, religion, theory of value, political philosophy, free will and determinism, etc. i'll even consider discussing aesthetics and philosophy of language (the two worst imho).
this thread offers no truths, just opinions and open discussion.
there are no stupid questions here.
"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
some possible topics include: metaphysics (the study of the fundamental nature of being and the world), morality and ethics, epistemology (the study of knowledge), philosophy of the mind, religion, theory of value, political philosophy, free will and determinism, etc. i'll even consider discussing aesthetics and philosophy of language (the two worst imho).
this thread offers no truths, just opinions and open discussion.
there are no stupid questions here.
"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
Comments
Sam Harris on "Free Will" - YouTube
What's your stance on free will?
thanks for opening the dialogue! free will vs. determinism is one of my favourites.
i am personally a determinist. more specifically i believe in hard determinism. determinism falls into two camps, soft and hard. soft determinists (also called compatibilists) argue that everything is determined, but that it's possible free will still exists and the two are not logically inconsistent. i have yet to hear an argument of how free will and determinism can coexist that i agree with though as all of them seem to have big issues.
as far as common sense goes, it really seems like we have free will. i mean, try to tell someone that when they make a free decision of whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream that they, in fact, have no choice in the matter, they'll most likely just tell you to shut up.
i think of it like this: when you are faced with any decision, a person looks to their past experiences, choices, histories etc. in order to choose the best possible option. well, all those experiences, choices, etc. that you are basing this decision on were, themselves, based on previous experiences, choices, etc. and those are based on even further back ones and so on until we can go back far enough to when the person was a baby and was unable to make their own decisions. however, it doesn't stop there as their parents were responsible for the decision making at that point and they too fall into this same trap as well as their parents, grandparents, and further generations of ancestors. what we have then is an infinite regress.
couple this above concept with the obvious fact that there are a multitude of experiences and events happening day to day all around us that 1) we cannot fully fathom or understand, and 2) that affect us whether we want them to or not. our minds are unable to consider every possible aspect that affects our final decisions. that alone obviously limits our freedom of choice for sure at least.
the reason that this is a major problem is that for free will to be true it is necessary that for at least one point in time (free will would obviously argue for more than one though) a person must have been truly "free" from limitations to choose. considering that it is impossible to completely free oneself from their past experiences and events (not to mention the multitude of events outside of the person), one cannot truly make a free decision.
consider a person who loves dogs. one day, this person is brutally attacked by a dog. now the person suddenly does not want to be around dogs. the fact is, they didn’t choose to stop liking dogs. possibly, they even still like dogs but just can’t be around them or think about them anymore because of the traumatic experience. so then, what free choice is this person making here? this is a crude example, i know, but the point is that there are innumerable events and experiences that bombard us throughout our lives and influence us in ways we do not and maybe cannot ever understand. yet, all these experiences always combine to weigh extremely heavily on all our decisions.
so, to say that you are freely choosing is an illusion. your choice was made for you through an extremely complicated web of causality that you most likely will never comprehend.
(man i tried to keep this short lol)
imho, the only possible alternative to determinism is random chance.
further considerations are the concepts of blame and praise (which many argue disappear in determinism – i feel they still have a place and can be used), and frankfurt type examples in relation to the principle of alternative possibilities. if interested, i can discuss these as well.
thanks again g2! that was fun (for me at least).
Also - what is the moral or ethical responsibilty of a country and the athletes of Canada while participating in a country's olympics with recent anti-gay law inclusions?
Mark
i’ll attempt to answer this even though i’m assuming you are joking (which is fine), and even though i’m not exactly 100% sure what you’re asking.
plato had a lot of requirements for the average person. probably too many to outline all at once, so i will pick some of the big ones to explain here.
first, plato argued that people who use their senses to understand reality weren’t able to truly see reality. he compares the average, non-philosophizing person to someone chained up, in a cave underground who is forced to look at shadows on a wall that are projected from a fire behind them that they can’t turn around to see. as far as this person is concerned, those shadows are reality and that’s all there is to it. a philosopher, on the other hand, was a person who was able to escape from the cave, find their way out into the light and finally see reality for what it truly is. (this is all allegory of the cave stuff.) so, first off, plato required people to go beyond just the senses and to use rationality and thinking to explain reality and not just rely on experience alone.
another big requirement from plato was the belief in the theory of forms (or ideas). he argued that to understand what something truly is, you have to understand the form or the idea of the object first. furthermore, he argued that these ultimate forms do not exist within us. they exist outside of us independently. therefore, the material world is merely a copy of actual reality. his prime example is of a table. when you think of a table, you may picture a specific table in your head. but just think about the idea of a table for a second. even if you didn’t picture a specific table, you can still understand the idea of a table – that is, whatever gives the object its “tableness”. this was another specific knowledge requirement of plato’s for everyone – that is the ideal concept of the theory of forms that exists outside of the material world (this was pretty crazy to suggest at the time obviously).
the third (and last) one i’ll mention is plato’s demands on society as a whole (as he discusses in the republic). he argues for a caste system to be put in place which, he says, directly relates to appetite, spirit, and reason – the main desires of the human (so i.e. three caste levels). he also argues that the best possible leaders of a nation should be philosophers (he refers to them as philosopher kings). the small group of philosopher kings are the decision makers for the entire society as philosophers, according to plato, are the only ones capable of making a objective decision that can benefit all of society.
also, he denied the creation of any and all art, music, and the like unless it was about the gods or the nation.
is that what you were (jokingly) getting at GTA?
btw, i expected a lot more interesting question from you.
EDIT: oh wait, do i agree? ummm, yes and no. his republic is a complete mess. he actually suggests at one point that a tyrannical government is better than a mismanaged democracy. however, having a group of philosopher kings in charge? i might be okay with that as long as they're still elected.
the allegory of the cave i definitely agree with. hell, that's kind of the point i started this thread. i am completely baffled at how people go around day to day utterly oblivious to the meaning of things around them, and to the amount of things they take for granted. getting more people to even consider something more than themselves even for a few seconds is a great accomplishment imo. i don't expect everyone to go out and start reading philosophy and trying to become philosophers (don't do that, oh man you'll just make yourself depressed lol), but if the next time a situation occurs and you think outside the box for once, that is friggin' awesome sauce!
and as far as the theory of forms, i get where he's trying to go with that, but it's definitely a stretch. i mean, to argue that before there were even humans or the universe - i mean before time existed - there was an idea of a table? yeah, i don't get that.
gender and sex issues are such troublesome topics. first off, we have to be clear on the distinction between gender and sex (as many people are not aware of this distinction). sex refers to the biology of a person and is a term of science. gender, on the other hand, is a cultural term that society created. sex is: men have more testosterone, women have more estrogen; men have XY chromosomes, women have YY. gender is: men are strong and macho, women are weak and submissive; men are more violent, women are more passive. i think you see my point in that gender is a cultural construct that is based on stereotypes and the like.
this debate is completely one-sided to me. religion aside, we are all humans whether we are male or female. we all participate in society together (more or less). to suggest that a person isn't good enough because of their sex is something that i could never do, nor could i find an argument to support such a claim.
i'm curious as to where this student draws the line. so he doesn't want to work in a group with females. is he okay being taught by females? if yes, how is that okay in his mind/religion? how about females in any authority roles? only at home in the kitchen i suppose?
in any case, i don't think religion belongs in the education system. you should teach the students about them, but that's it. as far as what the general values and principles that our education system should be based on? well now, isn't that something slightly important that should be discussed and debated on by society as a whole. i can 100% guaran-fuckin'-tee you that the vast, VAST majority of parents do not know what values their schools are (supposed) to espouse to the students (lol like the schools and teachers actually do it, but that's another issue). imo, this is a HUGE issue in education that no one is talking about.
with that all said, i hated doing group work in school
this question is fun. might not get a chance to answer until tomorrow though.
Everything I need to know I learned from Star Trek . . . LOL.
The longer this farce goes on, the more I think it was a prank engineered by the student. Too many things that make no sense . . .
- he had to have a syllabus of the course, and group work is specifically mentioned as a required part of it.
- the two major religions that were consulted, owing to those faiths having proscriptions on certain male/female interactions, both indicated that said group work was no issue.
- the student in question has never identified his Faith in order to clarify this issue.
- further, how big a deal could it have been if he immediately accepted the professors rejection of his request?
All that being said, I think the Prof made the right call, and York is being ridiculous in the aftermath. Take "yes" for an answer ferchrissakes.
Moral or ethical responsibility?
They are there to compete in their various sports, and I believe the oath they swear during the Opening Ceremony, specifically proscribes actions of a "political" nature. Tommy Smith, and I can NEVER remember the other guy, were stripped of their medals by the IOC for their actions in 1968 (iirc).
All that being said, I would love to see the Canadian Team (hell, ALL the athletes) show up at the Closing ceremony wearing rainbow paraphernalia. Hats, coats, flags, lots of rainbow stuff. What are they going to do, kill the broadcast?
oh snap. is that a hint? should i close this thread down?
no
i love this question, but i have to admit that it is slightly outside of my personal knowledge. i've read a lot about individual morality and the functioning and ethics of a state towards its people, but i haven't read a lot about nation vs. nation relationships to be honest. however, i'll still give it a go.
the international olympics committee (IOC) has come out and said that they are okay with the athletes speaking out against russia's anti-gay laws as long as they do it "away from accredited areas." the IOC said they will provide protest zones (i always find shit like this hilarious - "Oh yeah, you can conduct your protest for freedom of speech and liberal rights, just go fucking do it way over there in that designated area that we can't see or hear you from." and the protestors actually agree to do it lol.) therefore, it at least seems that the IOC themselves are agreeing that there is an issue.
i think the major issue here is whether countries do in fact have moral obligations to one another, and that is a great question in and of itself. is it the responsibility of nations to govern proper morals of other nations? we do to an extent obviously when there are major human rights violations, but even then we don't do it every time. and even when other countries do step in to help, normally they have other motives (money, oil, ect.). you can also question as to whether the olympics is the proper forum to protest russia's anti-gay laws or not.
personally, i do not think that nations should be used to govern morality. i honestly cannot comprehend how an absolutely morally good country (with respect to nation to nation relations) would act. i mean, it most likely wouldn't be the best nation for its own people. being morally good necessarily means having to sacrifice at times (according to some theorists, it's actually impossible to be morally good as they see it as an unobtainable position), and most nations are not going to hurt themselves or make themselves vulnerable to help another country, and i honestly don't think they should have to in general.
therefore, the moral decisions should be left up to the individuals, the athletes themselves. canada can send a team over, it's just for a sporting competition that's been going on for decades. the athletes must decide if they have an issue with "supporting" russia.
now it depends one's personal perspective of morality to make one's own decision, and there's a lot of different perspectives (which i can't get into here, but i can in another post if interested), but personally, i'd boycott if i was an athlete.
i 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.
i'm not big into star trek, nor did i know they had philosopher kings in that show. that is awesome!
i had this exact thought as well. there was just something strange about the whole situation. i feel like it was a marketing ploy by york just to get any kind of publicity.
In the novel for the first Star Trek movie they discuss what Star Fleet was looking for in Captains when mankind first went to the stars "Philosopher Kings" is an apt description for whom they put in charge. Only those type of people were easily swayed by more "advanced" cultures, and thus Starfleet found that guys like Kirk were better put in charge.
Agree or no?
good times either way.
this is an awesome question! nietzsche is the man. i actually just reread beyond good and evil recently just for fun (loser? check!). i'm working on my response but i may not get a chance to finish/post it until tomorrow.
UPDATE: finished writing my response, but half was written at home yesterday (and left at home), and the 2nd half was written today (at work). i'll put it all together this afternoon and post it then.
EDIT: after rereading this quotation, i realized it can relate to religion as well. hmmm...
(sorry for the delay, but here it is!)
first off, we need to know what we mean by platonism. basically, it is the belief in the theory of forms. i made mention of this above, but i'll go into more detail here.
so one day sometime around 400BC, plato and his buddies are sitting around, naked, spooning little boys and talking philosophy (seriously, the ancient greeks did this). plato suddenly asks, "hey guys, what's a table?" his buddies laugh and are like, "wtf man, it's a flat surface with legs." but plato's like, "no man, those are just properties of a table, but what is the idea of a table? like how do i know what a table is even without thinking about a specific table?" and all his friends are like, "oh shit!"
plato is arguing that there are two types of reality. there's the physical, sensible reality and there's the intelligible reality that we cannot perceive. every object and thing in the universe has an ideal form according to plato. these forms exist outside of us. they actually exist within this intelligible reality that we cannot perceive. the only way we can access it is through rationality and reason. what we perceive in the physical reality are just imperfect copies of the absolute true forms of the objects. therefore, the forms are considered perfect archetypes (they may be even described as transcendent iirc). the highest form is the form of the good, btw, and this form is the source of all other forms.
quick side note: plato taught a school in ancient greece for while. he had numerous followers who came to be taught by him. after his death, his school continued for years, but there were a few changes over its history. we don't need to know all the details, but the important one is in the third century when plotinus came in and made some changes. he established what they call neoplatonism. this is the system of thought that had direct influences on christianity.
under neoplatonism the ultimate form of the good became the one, or god. good and evil became immaterial along with god. this was obviously a huge influence to christianity. also, neoplatonism placed an importance on mystical observation which some would argue is the attempt to communicate with god (i.e. praying or miracles). i'm really glossing over these as it's not as simple as this, but i'm assuming we can see the influence and connection here.
now let’s turn to nietzsche. the quotation “christianity is platonism for the masses” comes from his book “beyond good and evil”. there are two main points we need to understand. first, nietzsche is arguing that pretty much all philosophers up to this point have been making stupid arguments about “truth” (this obviously includes plato’s philosophical theories as well). he states that we may not be able to find absolute truth about certain things (he also argues about the very nature of truth and falseness but i’m not getting into that here). therefore, according to him, all previous philosophers are just trapped and preaching this misunderstood dogmatism.
quick definition: dogmatism (noun): “the tendency to lay down principles as inconvertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others”. nietzsche HATED the notion of dogmatism and anyone who posited their claims in such a manner.
the 2nd main point to consider is nietzsche’s position on morality and religion. he argues that our current understanding of morality is completely out on a limb and he blames religion (specifically judeo-catholics and christians). he gets more into it in his “on the genealogy of morals”, but basically he’s saying that the idea of morality has been turned on its head by religion. what used to be considered “good” is now evil and what used to be considered “bad” is now good. this stems from the whole “the meek shall inherit the earth” and that sort of understanding that was brought on through catholicism. (i can explain this more in another post if interested, but i’m keeping it short and sweet here. i pretty much took an entire class based on this specific topic in university, but it’s complicated stuff.) basically, our normal desires and understandings, which at first were considered good, have now become evil and we must repel ourselves from wanting/desiring them. (again, this is a very basic interpretation of nietzsche as he can get very complicated.)
so basically, when nietzsche said that “christianity is platonism for the masses”, he was arguing that christianity (or religion in general) took what was good and made it bad. furthermore, they made this change based on nothing but the argument that that was how god wanted it to be. therefore, religion is guilty of preaching pointless dogmatism to the masses (well, and much more than that according to nietzsche, but that’s for a different post – “god is dead” afterall, amiright?). nietzsche argued that plato’s theories were just the same. that is, religion is to the people as platonism is to misguided philosophers. also, as mentioned above, platonism, just like christianity, argued for these transcendent ideals that we can't fully explain nor understand - again, pointless dogmatism according to nietzsche.
personally, i don’t 100% agree with nietzsche here, although i understand the comparison he’s making. he was really judgmental of previous philosophical theories and the basis of their arguments, just as he was with respect to religion and the basis of their beliefs. i just think he’s a little too harsh towards previous philosophers. at least they use some form of rational thought and analytical thinking (despite making some assumptions of faith here and there). to suggest that their philosophical theories are “just as bad” as dogmatic religious doctrines is a stretch imho though.
(sorry, this was a long one and i didn't know how to shorten it more).
thanks for the question SuitedPair! there was a lot in this post but i can elaborate on parts if anyone is interested.
kidding Trigs... kidding...
okay, back on topic.
there is a more literal (basic version) of the platonism argument but we'll leave that one for later.
more Freidrich,
most blatant example of will to power in history from your perspective?
not a question, but math is fun. math was actually taught alongside philosophy in the early schools in ancient greece. many philosophers were also mathematicians (descartes comes to mind obviously, pythagoras obviously, there's a ton). math was kind of our first language of logic. even plato's academy (during its middle age i think) starting focusing a lot on math and creating new theories and formulas.
42 was the answer to the meaning of life in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I thought someone on here would have caught that.
The question had to be determined afterwards.
i'm agnostic. that means that i don't feel there is adequate evidence to prove the existence of god, yet i also don't think there is adequate evidence to disprove his existence (the brunt of proof lies on both sides equally in theory, but i’m a little biased in this regard as i’m not the one yelling about some spiritual, all powerful, all knowing entity who lives up in the sky while offering no proof for one). agnostics attempt to withhold judgment until more information can be provided.
therefore, i also don't believe in heaven or hell. from a basic logical standpoint heaven, for example, would be insanely boring and most likely nonsensical. first off, what are you allowed to do for fun? can't drink alcohol (well, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, but that’s it. no drunken fun
but that brings up an interesting question. do we still desire and yearn in heaven? having and dealing with desires is central to being human. if we removed all our humanly desires, i don’t think we’d be human anymore. well then, what’s left? maybe you answer our “soul”, but i don’t know what that is. it surely isn’t just our thoughts and our minds as human desire is greatly woven into them as well. so even if there was a heaven, and i died and (somehow miraculously) i managed to get an invite, i don’t even know if it would be me (i.e. the identity that i identify with) going up there as the only me that i’ve ever known would be mostly left back on earth with all our base desires.
so, our physical bodies deteriorate and turn back into carbon (or whatever happens in human body decomposition, idk), but as far as the mental part of ourselves is concerned, i’m not so sure. does it just dissipate into the air instantly when we die? if you’re a materialist (everything is physical, there is no mental), i guess you have no issues with this, but i lean more to the idealist camp (everything is mental, there is no physical) with maybe a foot in with dualism (there are both physical and mental realms). so i have some issues in this regard, and to be honest, i have no idea what happens. does our mental half cease to exist if we no longer have a physical half? can thoughts exist without a mind doing the thinking?
i think that it is possible that our mental energies can linger after our death. this could be an explanation for “ghost” phenomena as well that people experience. obviously i’ll never know for sure (until i’m dead i guess).
i do enjoy spinoza’s theory of reality though, in which he argues that all of existence is one whole and we are just physical and mental parts of that whole. so when we die, we don’t disappear or cease to exist, we just change states. i kind of like that idea (but obviously i can’t prove nor rationalize any of this).
lol, yeah i knew that. good book. only read the first one though (i think there's five total).