Latest Thought

[gin]

the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

there is none (well, maybe 42 :P)
its quite simple really, although i might have to elaborate. what i am meaning to say is that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything. all the meaning there is, is an extrinsic construct (or delusion) of the human (or any other for that matter) mind fabricated by interpretation. for we search meaning, we want to find meaning.

on the christianity discussion here:
all beliefs are bad, for they are beliefs. when you start to believe, you stop to think. the worst of those christian beliefs (that also plagued platos philosophy...well, most of the western approach to reality) is the seperation of flesh and mind.

[Kastrophee]

Originally Posted by gin

the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

there is none (well, maybe 42 :P)
its quite simple really, although i might have to elaborate. what i am meaning to say is that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything. all the meaning there is, is an extrinsic construct (or delusion) of the human (or any other for that matter) mind fabricated by interpretation. for we search meaning, we want to find meaning.

Finding no meaning in everything is self contradictory as that in itself has meaning as well, but then who are you to say that their is no meaning or me to say their is?

Originally Posted by gin

on the christianity discussion here:
all beliefs are bad, for they are beliefs. when you start to believe, you stop to think. the worst of those christian beliefs (that also plagued platos philosophy...well, most of the western approach to reality) is the seperation of flesh and mind.

Where do you draw the line in where "all beliefs are bad"? (Your words, right?) The belief that "murder is bad" is bad then, right? And there is a lot of belief systems worse then Christianity, perhaps not as widespread, but still worse. (Muslim extremists that blow themselves up, pagans that burn church down in a stupid revenge effort, and ect.)

Everything you state lacks proof, just as what you are criticizing lacks proof. A philosophy is a philosophy, one or another it does not matter who is right in the end, we will all be dead with our hands around each others throats.

[gin]

Originally Posted by Kastrophee

Finding no meaning in everything is self contradictory as that in itself has meaning as well, but then who are you to say that their is no meaning or me to say their is?

well, appearantly you didnt read thoroughly. i said there is no intrinsic meaning...
i can and will find meaning. but not because it has meaning but because i give it meaning. theres a difference.

Where do you draw the line in where "all beliefs are bad"? (Your words, right?) The belief that "murder is bad" is bad then, right? And there is a lot of belief systems worse then Christianity, perhaps not as widespread, but still worse. (Muslim extremists that blow themselves up, pagans that burn church down in a stupid revenge effort, and ect.)

Everything you state lacks proof, just as what you are criticizing lacks proof. A philosophy is a philosophy, one or another it does not matter who is right in the end, we will all be dead with our hands around each others throats.

i dont believe that

"murder is bad" is bad

, but i think its wrong.
at least you said murder and not killing people. for murder is the unlawful killing of humans as opposed to the death sentence which is a legal murder.
lets however picture people during the 3. reich, that tried to assassinate hitler...thus and given the constitution of said country it would be considered murder for it would be unlawful. so, still wanna tell me all murder is bad? (i mean it might or could or would have saved some 70 million people...(there are dozens of such examples)

there being worse belief systems is no argument and as i stated, they are equally wrong.
even those that are worse. you see, good and bad are moral categories and moral categories have no value.
however, killing someone for ideological reasons (ie. beliefs) is always wrong.

[meromex666]

i wonder when the hell is the day gonna be over... i wanna go home already...

[DeusVult]

Should I eat Kettle Corn Popcorn or Movie Theater Style Popcorn

[wanryavka]

Originally Posted by DeusVult

Should I eat Kettle Corn Popcorn or Movie Theater Style Popcorn

Movie Theater. I just recently burnt out on kettle corn so now I'm back to butter lovers.

[Kastrophee]

Originally Posted by gin

well, appearantly you didnt read thoroughly. i said there is no intrinsic meaning...
i can and will find meaning. but not because it has meaning but because i give it meaning. theres a difference.

I thought I did, I stated this:

"Finding no meaning in everything is self contradictory as that in itself has meaning as well"

Which seems to become pointless in your new phrasing, and:

"but then who are you to say that their is no meaning or me to say their is?"

That still remains true, we are subjective and can not make such rash judgments without any proof (Which I am quite certain neither of us have). Finding meaning or not in which ever way you found it is irrelevant, existence can very easily be a random pointless event, it could have some meaning that is simple to even an infant hedgehog, or it could beyond even a top scientists comprehension. Pointless is trying to make any of those arguments.

Originally Posted by gin

i dont believe that , but i think its wrong.

Did I say you did? My point was pointing out how a poorly chosen statement can be drastically misunderstood.

Originally Posted by gin

at least you said murder and not killing people. for murder is the unlawful killing of humans as opposed to the death sentence which is a legal murder.
lets however picture people during the 3. reich, that tried to assassinate hitler...thus and given the constitution of said country it would be considered murder for it would be unlawful. so, still wanna tell me all murder is bad? (i mean it might or could or would have saved some 70 million people...(there are dozens of such examples)

Murder too was a poorly chosen word, but it can be argued that killing another human being is morally wrong 100% of the time. Though you won't hear that from me, my morals aren't exactly high. (Rambling there) How about instead of murder lets put rape? (I can't really think of a instance where rape would be acceptable by you or me. (Or most other people))

Originally Posted by gin

there being worse belief systems is no argument and as i stated, they are equally wrong.
even those that are worse. you see, good and bad are moral categories and moral categories have no value.
however, killing someone for ideological reasons (ie. beliefs) is always wrong.

If Christianity of the past and Christianity of the present are the same thing then I am very confused, the crusades ended long ago. (Didn't they?)
In that logic we could also say that the US government that enslaved black people is the same US government today (Which is run by a lot of idiots). I am merely tired of hearing Christianity being blamed for things people caused. Christianity is a system of belief, not the cause, only the reason.

And value is determined by each individual, as I remember reading somewhere else on this forum, one person might chase a US dollar bill blown by the wind 15 meters, while another won't chase it at all, or even chase it several miles. (It went something like that)

As for killing for ideological reason being always wrong, that too can be so and can not. Killing Hitler would be ideological (To save millions)?

Lastly, for the record, my current personal belief is that the universe is too well constructed to not be random (Definitely flawed, but the flaws are also part of its construction), but anything other then that I do not know for obvious reasons (Meaning it could be anything from an advanced race creating new races, to the Christian god, to the Roman gods, to something no one ever thought of, and ect.)

[ingrey]

Originally Posted by gin

the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

there is none (well, maybe 42 :P)
its quite simple really, although i might have to elaborate. what i am meaning to say is that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything. all the meaning there is, is an extrinsic construct (or delusion) of the human (or any other for that matter) mind fabricated by interpretation. for we search meaning, we want to find meaning.

People use the phrase "the meaning of life" all the time, but they really shouldn't because it's not clear what that sentence itself means. Sometimes when people say that they're referring to the significance, or value, of the total accumulation of the things in their lives, other people use the term to refer to the purpose, if there is one, for which they were made. But when someone asks the question "what is the meaning of life?" in most contexts the only way it makes sense is to understand it as the latter. Just replace the word 'meaning' with 'purpose' and then we have asked a question for which we can offer an answer.

In general, we attribute purpose to artifacts, which are made to fulfill some function. We might say of a knife that it's purpose is to cut, or of a car engine to power the car. But what does it mean to say of a human being that they have a purpose? If we allow that human beings are the kind of things that can have a purpose, we should distinguish between (1) self-given purpose and (2) purpose which is imposed upon us by virtue of the kind of creatures that we are. An example of (1) might be a doctor who decides that his function in life is going to be to save as many people as he can. On the other hand, (2) is the kind of purpose that implies an intelligent creator, one that created human beings for some particular end, like thinking or loving or having sex. So, when someone asks the question "what is the meaning of life?" they really want to know if there is purpose of kind (2). However, we don't have sufficient evidence to justify belief in an intelligent creator, much less evidence that would justify us in believing that we have a purpose, and know what that purpose is. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to assume that we do not have a purpose, unless you have some strong arguments to show why human beings aren't the kind of creatures that can have a purpose.

on the christianity discussion here:
all beliefs are bad, for they are beliefs. when you start to believe, you stop to think. the worst of those christian beliefs (that also plagued platos philosophy...well, most of the western approach to reality) is the seperation of flesh and mind.

Actually, I would argue that beliefs aren't the kinds of things which have moral properties. They are, however, a necessary component for understanding the nature of the world. There are an infinite number of true propositions that describe reality; and if we, as human beings, are able to make any sense of reality, it will have to be through believing those true propositions. It may well be that we cannot know any propositions (knowledge consists in true belief with some kind of justification on most theories), or even that we cannot be justified in believing any propositions, but if we are to have any kind of understanding at all, it isn't possible to avoid believing propositions about the world. Anyway, there are a lot of beliefs that are psychologically impossible for most of us to refrain from holding.

[gin]

Originally Posted by Kastrophee

I thought I did, I stated this:

"Finding no meaning in everything is self contradictory as that in itself has meaning as well"

well, since language is intentional and by will it does carry intrinsic meaning. the use of everything might have been a little drastic, and i just used it to bring the 42 joke.

"but then who are you to say that their is no meaning or me to say their is?"

That still remains true, we are subjective and can not make such rash judgments without any proof (Which I am quite certain neither of us have). Finding meaning or not in which ever way you found it is irrelevant, existence can very easily be a random pointless event, it could have some meaning that is simple to even an infant hedgehog, or it could beyond even a top scientists comprehension. Pointless is trying to make any of those arguments.

there is no intrinsic meaning because there is no intention to it. unless of course there was creator, which seems bogus to me, which i am fully aware is no argument, still; to explain how most things came into existence a creator is not necessary and thus ,according to occams razor, inexistent until it is proven existent.

How about instead of murder lets put rape? (I can't really think of a instance where rape would be acceptable by you or me. (Or most other people))

acceptable and good are again different categories. i could then turn around that statement: everything that is acceptable by society is good? if you want examples i could also spill them out for you...

If Christianity of the past and Christianity of the present are the same thing then I am very confused, the crusades ended long ago. (Didn't they?)
In that logic we could also say that the US government that enslaved black people is the same US government today (Which is run by a lot of idiots). I am merely tired of hearing Christianity being blamed for things people caused. Christianity is a system of belief, not the cause, only the reason.

the crusades from medieval times are over. now the crusades of the modernity just begun for once again the brave and free and righteous were sent on a mission by god to conquer the middle-east and spread the values of the west.
on another note, i did not say that christianity now and then were the same but that they are equally wrong. you see, wrong doesnt have a comperative. yeah yeah, grammatically speaking and in general language it does, but sth is either wrong or right or neither.

And value is determined by each individual, as I remember reading somewhere else on this forum, one person might chase a US dollar bill blown by the wind 15 meters, while another won't chase it at all, or even chase it several miles. (It went something like that)

this is not moral but its economical thinking. either you think your time and your ridiculing yourself for chasing a piece of paper are worth the bill or you dont.
i however clearly stated that every meaning and thus also every value is determined by yourself, and only yourself.

As for killing for ideological reason being always wrong, that too can be so and can not. Killing Hitler would be ideological (To save millions)?

not ideological, it would be for the greater good. the correct term would be tyrannicide and is the schoolbook example for the legitimation of murder under certain circumstances.
this is all i m trying to communicate, morals and beliefs are wrong for they are absolutes even when they dont apply to certain situations.

Lastly, for the record, my current personal belief is that the universe is too well constructed to not be random (Definitely flawed, but the flaws are also part of its construction), but anything other then that I do not know for obvious reasons (Meaning it could be anything from an advanced race creating new races, to the Christian god, to the Roman gods, to something no one ever thought of, and ect.)

you re a intelligent design theorist then?
or an agnosticist...

[ingrey]

Quote:
Lastly, for the record, my current personal belief is that the universe is too well constructed to not be random (Definitely flawed, but the flaws are also part of its construction), but anything other then that I do not know for obvious reasons (Meaning it could be anything from an advanced race creating new races, to the Christian god, to the Roman gods, to something no one ever thought of, and ect.)
you re a intelligent design theorist then?
or an agnosticist...

Anyone who ascribes to some version of the teleological argument (popularized as the argument from design) is usually committed only to the existence of one, ore more than one, entities that have sufficient power and intelligence to have created our world but that varies depending on which version of the argument they adopt. Unfortunately, even the strongest version of this argument doesn't show that the probability of the proposition "there is one, or more intelligent, powerful creatures responsible for the creation of the universe." is increased over 50%, so you can't even say that the proposition is more likely than not. All you can conclude from the teleological argument is that the probability of that proposition is increased. And that's not sufficient to justify believing in the existence of an intelligent creator.