most blatant example of will to power in history from your perspective?
Nice! I like it SuitedPair!
Okay, first an explanation of the concept “will to power”.
This is a term that Nietzsche came up with in response to Darwinism. The specifics and range of the concept changed over time throughout Nietzsche’s writings, but we’ll focus on the final explanation that he gives for it. Basically, Nietzsche argues that everything that lives desires power and expansion of said power. Not only that, but this will to power is central to all existence of life. He argued that this concept supersedes the will to live (which many consider the primary concept in Darwinism – and therefore in evolution). Therefore, the driving force of every living thing in existence is the pursuit of power (and not just basic survival). Nietzsche suggests that all our desires stem from this one desire. For example, our desire for pleasure is actually a desire for power which when we feed this desire we are supplied with pleasure.
For those who disagreed, Nietzsche offers a very simple and general example. We can all think of an example of someone in history who risked their life to gain more power, and I’m not just talking about poor people who have very little power if any at all. There have been numerous people with overwhelming power, yet they too risked their very lives just to gain even more power. This basic fact further suggests that the will to power is more powerful a desire than the will to live. (There’s obviously more to it than this. It ties back into the master/slave morality of Nietzsche that i mentioned in a previous post as well as some other theories. It’s also debatable whether Nietzsche meant for his theories to be behavioural in scope only or more far reaching, but I’m trying to keep it simple). So, as far as Nietzsche is concerned, the will to power is instinctual and fundamental to all life.
So, what is the most blatant example of will to power in history imo? I’m going to go with Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union (mostly because it gets talked about less compared to the holocaust and technically more people were killed, but both are obviously tragic). Stalin used starvation as a means to force the people to follow him. The numbers are something like 17-20 million people killed during his regime. The holocaust was hidden until closer to the end of the war. Stalin was killing everyone and hiding nothing from the rest of the world – extremely blatant indeed.
That being said, technically Nietzsche’s concept of will to power was used directly by Nazi Germany to outline their fascist propaganda. Apparently German philosopher Alfred Baeumler took Nietzsche’s concept and described it as “Hitler prophecy”.
I think that using examples of psychopaths, who are a small percentage of the general population, to explain a general theory is quite flawed
great point! there were many that disagreed with nietzsche for sure (heidegger was one of the big ones). and it does seem that the best examples to support nieztsche's argument are those extreme cases (whether it be crazy, power-hungry psychopaths or power-starved poor people). i really can't think of an example that falls in between like you say.
however, to play devil's advocate, it may be that we have nowhere else to look to except the extreme cases because it's only in such extreme cases that humans are forced to the brink of life or death (or gain or loss of power).
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
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)...
Thank you for teaching me that I am a materialist (I just never knew the label for this belief of mine). I'm not sure I completely agree with your definition of a materialist though.
Definition of materialism:
1. Philosophy -- The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Source.
To be clear, I believe that the mind is a natural phenomenon created entirely of physical matter. I don't believe "there is no mental".
That being said, I do think it's possible that the material world is an illusion somehow, and that reality is just mental. E.g. The Matrix.
I had an interesting thought recently. For a long time I had been discounting the chance that we (or just I) were in a Matrix-like virtual reality due to the vast processing power it would take to simulate the entire Universe. Then just a few days/weeks ago it occurred to me that in order to simulate my existence one would only have to simulate *what I perceive* (sight, sound, touch, the rest of the senses, whatever else... all the inputs to my mind basically). There would be no need to simulate *everything in my virtual reality*. Hence it would take far less processing power than I had assumed before.
So now I see simulation as a much more plausible explanation for the reality I perceive, and I have been thinking about that a lot lately. Not that I think it's the most likely explanation, just saying it moved way up the list.
can thoughts exist without a mind doing the thinking?
The way I see it, a thought is part of a mind. So I suppose my answer is no, a thought can't exist without a mind doing the thinking.
However, I don't think trying to answer this question can really get us anywhere in our understanding. Because to attempt to answer it other than my way above, I think you must have independent definitions for what is a "thought" and what is a "mind".
What I'm saying is, I think the definition of a "thought" is dependent on the definition of "mind" AND vice versa. To me they are pretty much one and the same.
I'd love to see someone try to define those either of those, without using the other.
Also, you run into the problem of having to define "exist". Which is kind of what we were trying to solve in the first place.
You've got me thinking a lot about Plato's "ideal forms". So far I think he is wrong. I don't think "ideal forms" *exist* in any way. I see them more as concepts that we have in our brains, which are simply very useful for communication.
I think everyone has a slightly different concept, to use your/Plato's example, of a table. Think about this... two people could look at an object and one person think it is a table, and the other disagree. Can we say that either is incorrect? To me, this implies that no "ideal table" truly exists.
I suppose Plato would just say that one of them is wrong. But unless there is some authority on tables to identify who is right and who is wrong... hmm definitely going to be thinking about this a lot more.
Please elaborate on this statement (i.e. the brunt of proof lies on both sides equally in theory)
All I meant by this was that both sides (the theist and the atheist) are forced to find proof to support their claims. They can’t be satisfied with simply claiming “truth in faith” (like most theists) or “truth in lack of evidence” (like most atheists). Funny enough, the agnostic (at least imo) has the burden of trying to prove (or disprove) both sides (more work for us lol!)
Thank you for teaching me that I am a materialist (I just never knew the label for this belief of mine). I'm not sure I completely agree with your definition of a materialist though.
Definition of materialism:
1. Philosophy -- The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Source.
To be clear, I believe that the mind is a natural phenomenon created entirely of physical matter. I don't believe "there is no mental".
You are right. My definition of materialism was crude. I can explain here in more detail.
There are three main positions when talking about the nature of reality. Materialism, as you posted, is the belief that everything in the world is made up of only one single thing – matter (depending on the philosopher, it can also be refer to as the physical, objects, substance, etc.). Idealism is the belief that everything in the world is made up of only one single thing – the mental (also referred to as ideas, spiritual, immaterial, etc. depending on the philosopher). Both of these systems are monist systems – that is they argue that there is only one single ‘thing’ that all of existence is made up of. (The third main one is dualism which argues for both a material and immaterial world that coexists and mirrors each other, but i won’t get into all the details here.)
So, like you mention, materialists still believe in mental faculties and ideas and thinking. They just think that all those processes can be described purely from a physical perspective. That is, ideas and thoughts are not these mental ‘things’ that float around in our minds (or wherever else), but they are actual, physical objects (or at least snapping synapses in our brains). I honestly have huge issues with materialism and find it very difficult to defend.
I love metaphysics and can get more into it if anyone wants. There are also other positions that aren’t as popular but are still very interesting such as pluralism, Kant’s transcendental idealism (literally took an entire course on this one), etc.
That being said, I do think it's possible that the material world is an illusion somehow, and that reality is just mental. E.g. The Matrix.
I had an interesting thought recently. For a long time I had been discounting the chance that we (or just I) were in a Matrix-like virtual reality due to the vast processing power it would take to simulate the entire Universe. Then just a few days/weeks ago it occurred to me that in order to simulate my existence one would only have to simulate *what I perceive* (sight, sound, touch, the rest of the senses, whatever else... all the inputs to my mind basically). There would be no need to simulate *everything in my virtual reality*. Hence it would take far less processing power than I had assumed before.
So now I see simulation as a much more plausible explanation for the reality I perceive, and I have been thinking about that a lot lately. Not that I think it's the most likely explanation, just saying it moved way up the list.
You are not the first to have this feeling! As far as physical things outside of us, I find it very hard to prove their existence as all I have to experience them are my senses, and not the actual object itself.
Somewhat related is Descartes’ arguments (the whole “I think, therefore I am” thing). His argument was based on the idea that he must exist since he thinks he does. He posits what he calls an ‘evil genius’ who is capable of controlling your mind and everything you sense (i.e. like in the matrix and you’re just hooked up to some machine or something like that). Descartes argues that even if this is actual reality and everything he is senses is all fake, it still follows that he necessarily exists as it is impossible for the evil genius to make him think he exists if in fact he does not (i.e. how can something that doesn’t exist think?).
The way I see it, a thought is part of a mind. So I suppose my answer is no, a thought can't exist without a mind doing the thinking.
However, I don't think trying to answer this question can really get us anywhere in our understanding. Because to attempt to answer it other than my way above, I think you must have independent definitions for what is a "thought" and what is a "mind".
What I'm saying is, I think the definition of a "thought" is dependent on the definition of "mind" AND vice versa. To me they are pretty much one and the same.
I'd love to see someone try to define those either of those, without using the other.
Also, you run into the problem of having to define "exist". Which is kind of what we were trying to solve in the first place.
Some arguments that posit that thoughts are outside of the mind require something to “take care of” these thoughts. Usually, it is God that is inserted here (which is obviously a debatable premise to the argument). Other theories argue that physical things only exist because they are thought of (i.e. sensed) and that when they are not thought of they cease to exist. Wait, so when you leave a room and it’s empty of people, the room ceases to exist? No, because God continues “thinking” about the room and holds it in existence for us. (I personally don’t agree with this idea though).
You've got me thinking a lot about Plato's "ideal forms". So far I think he is wrong. I don't think "ideal forms" *exist* in any way. I see them more as concepts that we have in our brains, which are simply very useful for communication.
I think everyone has a slightly different concept, to use your/Plato's example, of a table. Think about this... two people could look at an object and one person think it is a table, and the other disagree. Can we say that either is incorrect? To me, this implies that no "ideal table" truly exists.
I suppose Plato would just say that one of them is wrong. But unless there is some authority on tables to identify who is right and who is wrong... hmm definitely going to be thinking about this a lot more.
I don’t agree with Plato either in this regard. There were philosophers that were more along your line of thinking. Kant, for example, would probably agree that it’s all in our head (he actually argued that all notions of time and causality are just in our minds – i.e. it’s just how our minds work when we think about things in a linear fashion of causing effects but it’s not how reality actually works).
I 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.
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:)
I'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 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.
I'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.
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.
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?)
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.
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!
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Hey 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.
meh, 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.
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".
meh, 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.
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.
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.
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".
just to be clear, i didn't mention anything about who should be boycotting, but i'm assuming we're talking about the people watching (because i'd imagine that if all the athletes boycotted and the olympics didn't happen, you'd agree that that was a message well sent).
i find it really difficult to agree with you. do you really think that if the millions of people at home all decided not to watch the olympics at all and/or all the fans chose not to pay for tickets to go watch live that that wouldn't send a message? that would be huge, huge revenue losses for tons of people and businesses (and not just in russia). i find it very difficult to see how this is equal to clicking 'like' on a facebook page, but i'm still open to more explanation.
Comments
Nice! I like it SuitedPair!
Okay, first an explanation of the concept “will to power”.
This is a term that Nietzsche came up with in response to Darwinism. The specifics and range of the concept changed over time throughout Nietzsche’s writings, but we’ll focus on the final explanation that he gives for it. Basically, Nietzsche argues that everything that lives desires power and expansion of said power. Not only that, but this will to power is central to all existence of life. He argued that this concept supersedes the will to live (which many consider the primary concept in Darwinism – and therefore in evolution). Therefore, the driving force of every living thing in existence is the pursuit of power (and not just basic survival). Nietzsche suggests that all our desires stem from this one desire. For example, our desire for pleasure is actually a desire for power which when we feed this desire we are supplied with pleasure.
For those who disagreed, Nietzsche offers a very simple and general example. We can all think of an example of someone in history who risked their life to gain more power, and I’m not just talking about poor people who have very little power if any at all. There have been numerous people with overwhelming power, yet they too risked their very lives just to gain even more power. This basic fact further suggests that the will to power is more powerful a desire than the will to live. (There’s obviously more to it than this. It ties back into the master/slave morality of Nietzsche that i mentioned in a previous post as well as some other theories. It’s also debatable whether Nietzsche meant for his theories to be behavioural in scope only or more far reaching, but I’m trying to keep it simple). So, as far as Nietzsche is concerned, the will to power is instinctual and fundamental to all life.
So, what is the most blatant example of will to power in history imo? I’m going to go with Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union (mostly because it gets talked about less compared to the holocaust and technically more people were killed, but both are obviously tragic). Stalin used starvation as a means to force the people to follow him. The numbers are something like 17-20 million people killed during his regime. The holocaust was hidden until closer to the end of the war. Stalin was killing everyone and hiding nothing from the rest of the world – extremely blatant indeed.
That being said, technically Nietzsche’s concept of will to power was used directly by Nazi Germany to outline their fascist propaganda. Apparently German philosopher Alfred Baeumler took Nietzsche’s concept and described it as “Hitler prophecy”.
great point! there were many that disagreed with nietzsche for sure (heidegger was one of the big ones). and it does seem that the best examples to support nieztsche's argument are those extreme cases (whether it be crazy, power-hungry psychopaths or power-starved poor people). i really can't think of an example that falls in between like you say.
however, to play devil's advocate, it may be that we have nowhere else to look to except the extreme cases because it's only in such extreme cases that humans are forced to the brink of life or death (or gain or loss of power).
Me too.
Please elaborate on this statement.
Thank you for teaching me that I am a materialist (I just never knew the label for this belief of mine). I'm not sure I completely agree with your definition of a materialist though.
Definition of materialism:
1. Philosophy -- The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Source.
To be clear, I believe that the mind is a natural phenomenon created entirely of physical matter. I don't believe "there is no mental".
That being said, I do think it's possible that the material world is an illusion somehow, and that reality is just mental. E.g. The Matrix.
I had an interesting thought recently. For a long time I had been discounting the chance that we (or just I) were in a Matrix-like virtual reality due to the vast processing power it would take to simulate the entire Universe. Then just a few days/weeks ago it occurred to me that in order to simulate my existence one would only have to simulate *what I perceive* (sight, sound, touch, the rest of the senses, whatever else... all the inputs to my mind basically). There would be no need to simulate *everything in my virtual reality*. Hence it would take far less processing power than I had assumed before.
So now I see simulation as a much more plausible explanation for the reality I perceive, and I have been thinking about that a lot lately. Not that I think it's the most likely explanation, just saying it moved way up the list.
The way I see it, a thought is part of a mind. So I suppose my answer is no, a thought can't exist without a mind doing the thinking.
However, I don't think trying to answer this question can really get us anywhere in our understanding. Because to attempt to answer it other than my way above, I think you must have independent definitions for what is a "thought" and what is a "mind".
What I'm saying is, I think the definition of a "thought" is dependent on the definition of "mind" AND vice versa. To me they are pretty much one and the same.
I'd love to see someone try to define those either of those, without using the other.
Also, you run into the problem of having to define "exist". Which is kind of what we were trying to solve in the first place.
You've got me thinking a lot about Plato's "ideal forms". So far I think he is wrong. I don't think "ideal forms" *exist* in any way. I see them more as concepts that we have in our brains, which are simply very useful for communication.
I think everyone has a slightly different concept, to use your/Plato's example, of a table. Think about this... two people could look at an object and one person think it is a table, and the other disagree. Can we say that either is incorrect? To me, this implies that no "ideal table" truly exists.
I suppose Plato would just say that one of them is wrong. But unless there is some authority on tables to identify who is right and who is wrong... hmm definitely going to be thinking about this a lot more.
This is fun! Thanks trigs.
FYP... And my head hurts...
All I meant by this was that both sides (the theist and the atheist) are forced to find proof to support their claims. They can’t be satisfied with simply claiming “truth in faith” (like most theists) or “truth in lack of evidence” (like most atheists). Funny enough, the agnostic (at least imo) has the burden of trying to prove (or disprove) both sides (more work for us lol!)
You are right. My definition of materialism was crude. I can explain here in more detail.
There are three main positions when talking about the nature of reality. Materialism, as you posted, is the belief that everything in the world is made up of only one single thing – matter (depending on the philosopher, it can also be refer to as the physical, objects, substance, etc.). Idealism is the belief that everything in the world is made up of only one single thing – the mental (also referred to as ideas, spiritual, immaterial, etc. depending on the philosopher). Both of these systems are monist systems – that is they argue that there is only one single ‘thing’ that all of existence is made up of. (The third main one is dualism which argues for both a material and immaterial world that coexists and mirrors each other, but i won’t get into all the details here.)
So, like you mention, materialists still believe in mental faculties and ideas and thinking. They just think that all those processes can be described purely from a physical perspective. That is, ideas and thoughts are not these mental ‘things’ that float around in our minds (or wherever else), but they are actual, physical objects (or at least snapping synapses in our brains). I honestly have huge issues with materialism and find it very difficult to defend.
I love metaphysics and can get more into it if anyone wants. There are also other positions that aren’t as popular but are still very interesting such as pluralism, Kant’s transcendental idealism (literally took an entire course on this one), etc.
You are not the first to have this feeling! As far as physical things outside of us, I find it very hard to prove their existence as all I have to experience them are my senses, and not the actual object itself.
Somewhat related is Descartes’ arguments (the whole “I think, therefore I am” thing). His argument was based on the idea that he must exist since he thinks he does. He posits what he calls an ‘evil genius’ who is capable of controlling your mind and everything you sense (i.e. like in the matrix and you’re just hooked up to some machine or something like that). Descartes argues that even if this is actual reality and everything he is senses is all fake, it still follows that he necessarily exists as it is impossible for the evil genius to make him think he exists if in fact he does not (i.e. how can something that doesn’t exist think?).
Some arguments that posit that thoughts are outside of the mind require something to “take care of” these thoughts. Usually, it is God that is inserted here (which is obviously a debatable premise to the argument). Other theories argue that physical things only exist because they are thought of (i.e. sensed) and that when they are not thought of they cease to exist. Wait, so when you leave a room and it’s empty of people, the room ceases to exist? No, because God continues “thinking” about the room and holds it in existence for us. (I personally don’t agree with this idea though).
I don’t agree with Plato either in this regard. There were philosophers that were more along your line of thinking. Kant, for example, would probably agree that it’s all in our head (he actually argued that all notions of time and causality are just in our minds – i.e. it’s just how our minds work when we think about things in a linear fashion of causing effects but it’s not how reality actually works).
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.
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:)
What was the question?
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).
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.
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.
lmao!
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.
and in an alternate multiverse is your husband....... yeah, this is getting out of hand....
and where the f@#$ is hobbes? with a handle like that he should be all over this thread (Calvinism?)
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.
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!
I did not read your novella before responding.
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.
The Philosophy Of Suicide
Philosophy is not religion. It must not be taught that way | Charlie Duncan Saffrey | Comment is free | theguardian.com
yeah 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
meh, i don't like capitalism. i feel like i could possibly put an argument together that shows that its worse than communism.
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.
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.
So are you saying we arm all those of another persuasion with SAM's? Hmm. might be interesting...
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".
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.
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.
just to be clear, i didn't mention anything about who should be boycotting, but i'm assuming we're talking about the people watching (because i'd imagine that if all the athletes boycotted and the olympics didn't happen, you'd agree that that was a message well sent).
i find it really difficult to agree with you. do you really think that if the millions of people at home all decided not to watch the olympics at all and/or all the fans chose not to pay for tickets to go watch live that that wouldn't send a message? that would be huge, huge revenue losses for tons of people and businesses (and not just in russia). i find it very difficult to see how this is equal to clicking 'like' on a facebook page, but i'm still open to more explanation.