Epochalyptik says... #3

Is there a compelling reason this shouldn't be a place for this? The subject is not inherently dangerous to the community. You are welcome to not participate if you don't like the thread.

July 25, 2015 1:19 p.m.

Chandrian says... #4

Uhm... are you trying to have us write your Philosophy PhD?

3) Humans always see things from a certain perspective. Since no human sees things from exactly the same perspective at the same time, the truth for humans will never be objective, always positioned.

Also... this question has already been asked by Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato... (Plato's answer to this question was (I don't know what the exact english term is, but litteraly translated it is:) "Plato's Cave".

(This thread has so much Theros flavor in it :p )

July 25, 2015 1:23 p.m.

ThisIsBullshit says... #5

Cheesebro did you miss the "post productively" part of the original post lmao

July 25, 2015 1:27 p.m. Edited.

Epochalyptik says... #6

It's a mistake to assume that questions like these can only be answered one time or by one individual. The fundamental driver of pursuits like philosophy, science, art, etc. is that contributions can be made by anyone at any time and can improve the collective understanding of the subject.

July 25, 2015 1:27 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #7

And regarding perspective, how does that affect measurable things like force? Is the force exerted by, say, gravity objective or subjective? You may argue that you can perceive the force differently, but does that change the force itself or just your reaction to it?

July 25, 2015 1:29 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #8

Platos allegory of the cave doesnt really answer anything, it's just an attempt to describe what we should seek to do.

July 25, 2015 1:34 p.m.

Chandrian says... #9

I feel like question 3 and 4 are a bit connected.

For instance I don't believe there is an "objective morality". People live in different places and have different experiences. These experiences will guide them in feeling what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Question 4 (on Human Rights) is closely related. At the moment the international human rights are established by the Western Powers (North America, Europe). But it is clear that "liberty" "peace" "democracy" and "freedom of speech", to name a few, are not as important everywhere.

Imagine you live in a country where a war is raging... at that moment most people will only care about survival. Or when there's a famine... people will want food. So, for the war case: if someone protects them, they don't care they have no say in what's going on, what matters to them is that they're safe.

It's only once your "primary needs" (food, shelter, safety, etc) are satisfied that you worry about "higher" morals like human rights.

(I hope this is seen as a constructive intro for question 3 and 4, feel free to disagree)

July 25, 2015 1:38 p.m.

sergiodelrio says... #10

I believe you are asking very different questions here. The term or even the purpose of philosophy are no matter of discussion. They are predefined and somewhat untouchable in their definition because the translation of the original greek word is very straight forward: "to love wisdom". And what that means is to discuss epistemic topics and science on a meta-level. Therefore asking for a purpose of philosophy is like asking for a purpose of asking for a purpose. The simple answer is it needs no purpose, because the purpose lies in the purpose of being able to ask for it. The other answer is, it is pointless to ask for a purpose in this case, because the answer will lead to an explanation of infinite regression (for the reason stated before). What you want to do (I guess) is to start a philosophical conversation about morale, truth, and human rights.

(And sorry for the possibly clunky english; I am not a native speaker.)

July 25, 2015 1:41 p.m. Edited.

Chandrian says... #11

@ Epochalyptic: There is a french anthropologist, Bruno Latour, who worked a bit in a laboratory and showed that even "objective sciences" are not as objective as they make us believe.So, yeah I think there's an "objective" world out there... but we will never be able to really grasp it (hence my talking about Plato).

Also... history is always recorded by the winners.

July 25, 2015 1:48 p.m.

buildingadeck says... #12

In my opinion, there are both objective and subjective morals. There are certain things, like murder or rape that can be said to be objectively bad things. On the other hand, there are other moral choices that have different meanings in different societies or even within the same religious/moral doctrines based on circumstance.

July 25, 2015 1:58 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #13

@Chandrian: You make an interesting point, and I paused for a minute to think about the implications. Interestingly, there are many situations in which people have abandoned their prior conceptions of morality in favor of survival and many situations in which people have elected to die or to suffer rather than betray their beliefs.

Iconic examples include forced conversions (and refusals to convert) during religious inquisitions and crusades hundreds of years ago as well as humanitarians who sheltered refugees during genocides in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and other countries within the past 75 years.

Given that observation, I don't agree that morality is necessarily something that should or can only be given consideration once other needs are fulfilled. It must depend on the individual in question.

As for the history comment (post #10), I'm not sure what your purpose in saying that is. Can you tie it to the discussion? I have a feeling that you intended to use it as an example of other things that are not objective, and while it's true that our interpretations and accounts of history are inherently biased in a number of ways, the events that occurred are immutable and unchangeable.

So I suppose the question to ask is whether it is worthwhile to work toward what could be called an "objective" understanding of the truth (be it the truth of history or of something else) or to simply work toward a more advanced comprehension of what we can observe?

In my opinion, the latter is more immediately honest, but it doesn't preclude anyone from asking whether objective truths exist or are worth seeking. Do you believe that there are fundamentally no objective truths or that there may exist objective truths, but that we are incapable of understanding them in a truly objective manner?

July 25, 2015 2 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #14

@buildingadeck: Not that I would for a second propose that rape or murder are wholly or fundamentally justifiable, but the perception of whether those actions are moral is dependent entirely on the philosophy to which you subscribe.

Let's visit the classic divide between Kantianism and utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant and his disciples argue, in part, that you shouldn't take actions that you wouldn't want others to take. This application of the Golden Rule to philosophy is called the Categorical Imperative, and it attempts to establish certain universal moral rules, such as "do not rape" or "do not murder," based on the implications if such actions were morally permissible on a large scale. Utilitarians, on the other hand, argue that the moral action is the one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people.

At a basic level, it seems that utilitarianism could be used to justify actions that many would condemn individually for one reason or another. I've been looking for more nuanced assessments of the Utilitarian position, and I've found some arguments that propose different kinds of happiness (how exactly one would measure the degrees of happiness and the sum of happiness on each side has always been something of a sticking point for utilitarianism).

For example, let's say that there's a refugee in a town. Expelling the refugee would make the residents of the town feel safer, and none of them particularly like the group from which the refugee comes. But it could be argued that the townspeople could get over not liking the refugee while the refugee might not be able to escape persecution if expelled. Slavery is another common example of this kind of argument. Slave owners can eventually get over not owning slaves, but slaves can never really get over being slaves.

Further, what happens to the moral condemnation of murder if it is committed in self defense? Is it objectively immoral to kill, for example, a robber who has broken into your home and presents a direct and lethal threat to your family? Or does the moral assessment of the situation have to consider the options immediately available to the moral actor and the motives for the action?

The point of all of this is really to ask what the basis is for whatever delineation you make between objective and subjective morality? How do you determine what is or is not objective or subjective? How do you determine what is objectively immoral or objectively moral?

July 25, 2015 2:14 p.m.

Chandrian says... #15

The history comment was, just like you thought, about this:

Things happen (objectively). But their recordings are positioned and therefore it is near-impossible to fully understand what really happened later on. This becomes harder the more time has passed.Also, in some very rare cases, history can completely be rewritten (e.g. you can't say that Armstrong has won the Tour de France 7 times... yet he did.)

(I am currently reading "1984" by George Orwell, so I'm a bit mindfcked atm :p )

I believe their exists an objective truth, but we will never fully grasp it. I think we are trying to know the "truth" because we are uncertain. But it may be better on the long term just to accept the world we live in and find a modus vivandi that fits us (e.g. wheter lightning comes from a God, an MtG player or a natural complex thing... I don't care but whatever the answer I can keep living happily...)

July 25, 2015 2:27 p.m.

buildingadeck says... #16

Epochalyptik: Always insightful and mentally-spurring are your posts. I am by no means an expert in philosophy, but I will attempt to answer according to your definitions.

Utilitarianism could be a great answer to a lot of our questions, but like you said, it does lack nuance. In the case of rape, one person is happy while the other is left crippled, and I think you can define that as objectively wrong because it will always be that way.

Killing is slightly different, of course. I will start by saying that by murder, I meant unlawful killing, and self-defense is within the law. However, killing in general, according to utilitarianism leaves a person dead (and thus, incapable of feeling happiness) and another emotionally distraught (in most cases) at the act he or she has performed. The subjective morality of killing a person in self-defense is usually made correct by the information that in that circumstance it is either one person's life or another, and the body naturally wants to survive to keep itself going, and thus, psychology/biology justifies the killing. Like you said, some people would not break moral code to do so. In those cases, the person's psychology has been biased by moral doctrine, and ergo, their actions will also shift.

Going back to utilitarianism (sorry, I'm bouncing around a lot), I think that first we must define what happiness is. Is it simply a chemical composition that occurs in the brain, something we can define objectively, or is it something that is individual to each person based on some experiential knowledge? If it's the first one, then can we reach objective truths through it?

July 25, 2015 2:31 p.m.

bigguy99 says... #17

I just think more people should take shit one step at a time. Gotta slow everything down, like some Travis Woo type stuff.

July 25, 2015 2:54 p.m.

Wizard_of_the_Broke says... #18

I believe there may be objective truths, even objective moral truths. But we don't presently, and perhaps will never, have real access to those things. There may be some purpose to the universe we don't/can't know, from which an objective sense of morality might follow. There may be things we will learn about physical laws or the way our brains work that will point to some objective understanding of what we ought to do.

So even if we lack access to the objective, or any ability to absolutely confirm knowledge, it is still useful to speculate about what the objective things might be like, and still useful for us to experiment in the hopes of increasing our degree of certainty about something.

For me, these are good reasons to put stock in reasoning and scientific inquiry, and not adopt some kind of agnosticism or absolute relativism about morality and the acquisition of knowledge (borrowed largely from Sam Harris, who I really don't like but occasionally agree with, and Bertrand Russell, who rules).

Epochalyptik - I like the idea of this board. Might I suggest that you and others post ideas for introductory reading on Philosophy, for the uninitiated?

This is my favorite intro to recommend. It is short and very accessible: The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell - audio: link

July 25, 2015 3:19 p.m.

RoarMaster says... #19

1) The purpose of philosophy, IMHO, is to find/create an acceptable reality for our minds to feel comfortable in.

2) The most valuable aspects of philosophy would be the quest for our own personal truth. An impossible search for the meaning of life that leads to many personal revelations along the way.

3) There is universal truth, as in truth of fact beyond our perception. The sun shines if we exist to see it or not for example. Though percieved truths vary from person to person.
3.2) there is no such thing as objective morality outside of the species that is assuming a moral stance. The only objectively moral things humans do are things that our instincts alone require of us. Procreate, Survive. Every other action is immoral to our true nature unless it promotes either of the above two.

4) Human Rights are a construct of our society that was created, at the most basic level, to provide the ability to A Survive B Procreate. Human rights do not exist outside of our own perception of them. And I would say our rights on an instinctive level are again based solely on survival and procreation.

July 25, 2015 3:37 p.m.

O-higgs says... #20

Philosophy, in a more helpful and practical sense, is meant to help us live well.
Stoic and existentialist thought have been pretty helpful in making life easier to handle. (Aurelius, Nietzsche)
There may be objective truth in the world as it is, but we can never know that since we all subjectively experience that world through our own fallible senses. Human knowledge is, more or less, an infinitely self-referential system for relating the world to ourselves and others. Truth outside of our own humanity can't be reliably claimed.
Human rights are an entirely made up concept that have no inherent meaning. But they are quite nice to have in the frame of the human experience. 8/10 would recommend.

July 25, 2015 4:31 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #21

RoarMaster your point 3.2 made me smile. "Every...action is immoral unless it promotes [procreation or survival]. Immoral may not be the word I choose, but what is morality other than an alignment with our felt sense of "right." We feel guilt because we go against our morals, when we let ourselves down and when we work towards goals that are more out of obligation than desire. It's interesting...

So...to the questions.

1) what is philosophy has been adequately stated. It's a quest for an understanding of the subjective vs objective experience.

2) Again, adequately stated by everyone else.

3)Objective truth exists but is beyond our comprehension. The whole "tree falls in a forest" thing comes into play here. We know the physical reality constitutes objectivity, but we cannot comprehend it without some kind of subjectivity tied to the symbolism involved. Objective morality does not exist. I would posit that a system (morality) devised solely from a subjective interpretation of experience can't result in anything more than a subjective morality.

4) personally I believe our lives to be highly pre-determined, and as a result "human rights" are kind of a farce. I would want to say "everyone should have x, y and z" as a function of their humanity but then this little concept of "reality" dawns on me. There is no entitlement to survival. We are groomed in certain environments and those constraints tie us to our future, whether it be poverty, alcoholism, starvation or the top 1%. We get what we get...

July 25, 2015 8:11 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #22

I've asked this before...does rape help insure our survival?

July 25, 2015 8:26 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #23

Ensure

July 25, 2015 8:32 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #24

@RoarMaster: I'll caution you now about the error, as I consider it, of saying that survival is what determines morality.

Hume's Guillotine, so named for philosopher David Hume, states roughly that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." That is, you can't state that something ought to be or that it is moral based on the fact that it is. It's an articulation of the naturalistic fallacy.

A system of morality based on the promotion of survival and procreation has horrifying implications for civilized society and human rights. Such a system seemingly easily and readily justifies eugenics and rape, which are widely understood to be immoral on the basis of the harm they cause to others and the violation of autonomy, life, and privacy that they represent.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "instinctive rights." You haven't characterized any of them.

Further, does the fact that human rights are a philosophical invention mean that they are not worth considering, or that they do not influence or should not influence human behavior?

@MindAblaze: In what way are our lives predetermined, and why does that mean that human rights are a "farce"? It seems that you, too, have been caught on the wrong side of Hume's Guillotine. Reality is not a metric for determining what ought to be. It's simply an account of what is. Do you propose that we ought not to theorize and defend basic equality and rights for all people? Do you make that proposition on the basis of unequal circumstances?

July 25, 2015 8:56 p.m.

O-higgs says... #25

Rape doesn't ensure survival. Being a successful species ensures survival and provides the opportunity to procreate. Rape is a sporadic violation of bodily autonomy that other primates also tend to frown upon. The point of being a strong primate and gaining dominance is to have better access to resources, including mates that will breed with the alpha because he displays favorable genetics in some form. Forcing oneself upon another is a subversion of that instinct-driven social order. All that aside, our survival is threatened by our large population if nothing else. And just a heads up, nothing is sketchier than a question that even hints at justifying rape. Not saying that was the intent, but my god, that comes off in a very concerning way.

It's also faulty to apply these environmental and evolutionary aspects to modern humans (especially in the first world) which has many facets that nature never created in the way we commonly associate. Those theories reflect functions of life in a wild, natural state. We evolved to be great long-distance running primates in the plains of sub-Saharan Africa. Our success and position in society however is the result of socio-economic and cultural constructs which we collectively invented. It's a whole new ball game.

July 25, 2015 9:17 p.m. Edited.

MindAblaze says... #26

My point is exactly that what is is what ought to be. Our combination of social circumstances and emotional learning environments creates a predestined future (present) for us in that our decisions are guaranteed based on how we learn to get what we need. I would not argue against the desire for everyone to enjoy basic civil liberties, to avoid undue prosecution and have access to the lowest tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy, but rather that even my position that people should have access to what they want/need is determined by everything that lead me to where I am in this moment. To say there are basic human entitlements is a western dream based on the fact that actual survival is easy in our culture. Our "human entitlement" is a function of our history.

I believe wholeheartedly that we can theorize all day long about the ideals of human equality and equal rights, but I acknowledge that unequal circumstances limits the potential we have to achieve that. Culture learns at the pace it needs to and by violence we can (and have) impose(d) our reality on others. Asking the question doesn't hurt, but making it so is another thing entirely.

July 25, 2015 9:42 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #27

That perspective strikes me as hopelessly hindered by resignation to circumstance. Great advancements in human history have been made by people who defied circumstance and searched for something better for themselves and others.

It may be true that, as individuals we are shaped by our upbringing and our current and past circumstances. But if those influences have brought you to a point at which you realize that they can be threats to the survival, success, and happiness of other humans, do you feel no sense of duty to help overcome them and change what is in order to shape what will be?

The impossibility of true equality may be assured circumstantially, but that's not, to me, sufficient or even partial justification for refusing to work toward it. You need not achieve the goal to achieve progress.

July 25, 2015 9:48 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #28

O-Higgs I disagree that we've "evolved" beyond anything. At our core we are still mammals that require food water and sex to prolong the existence of the species. To suggest I was justifying rape is missing the point of the question. My goal was to see if "procreation through sexual force" achieves the goals of the rapist. I would hazard to say more than a few children exist as a result of rape, so those people achieved their goal on this planet; To create copies of our genetics. It's not an ethical question for me, rape is undoubtedly bad, it just begs the question of whether it's against our mammalian need to procreate...although it's in a sketchy way.

July 25, 2015 9:50 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #29

It's not some genetic mutation that causes these people to change their circumstance in the face of low odds though, it's the people programmed to strive for excellence with the opportune set of arisen circumstances to make the required changes that do make them.

I'm saying my desire to change what is for others is guaranteed based on my circumstances, that I am undoubtedly pulled in that direction and that my power to do so is directly related to X number of factors that are beyond my control, where x is an immeasurable variable controlled in no small part by the chaotic trajectory of an infinite number of inter-human, circumstantial relations.

July 25, 2015 10:04 p.m.

buildingadeck says... #30

MindAblaze: Circumstance does not exact causality. We are not randomized but rather calculated. When we make decisions, we make them based upon past decisions and consequences. Moving toward a more macro scale, when we are presented with opportunity, it still takes a decision to make something of that opportunity.

July 25, 2015 10:09 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #31

I never once proposed that a genetic mutation was responsible for that mindset, although I do argue against the idea that people are selectively (whether socially or otherwise) "programmed" to strive for excellence. Achievement is something valued across cultures and ideologies, even in the poorest and most underdeveloped parts of the world. Further, it needn't be the case that you require opportune circumstances in order to act on your ideas.

The whole proposition seems fatalistic at best.

You also haven't answered the question: is it or is it not worth pursuing the betterment of human existence and experience? Are human rights an appropriate or inappropriate tool for achieving that goal? Are the articulation and defence human rights worthwhile or not worthwhile pursuits?

July 25, 2015 10:11 p.m.

O-higgs says... #32

Fair enough. But I never intended to imply an 'evolution beyond' our genetic programming. Just that the theories behind that wiring aren't entirely compatible with our modern forms of society, being far more abstract and arbitrary than natural survival pressures. And my issue with your question of rape on that basis is that it relies on an assumption of purpose regarding reproduction as a goal. There's isn't really anything we can call purpose outside of the human condition. Modes of operation is how I tend to look at it. Life doesn't exist to reproduce, and reproduction doesn't exist to create life, it's just how those phenomena happen to operate. It just does.

In a purely natural frame, rape does accomplish the goal of procreation. But it seems to be an oversimplification in the face of our societal sensibilities. Which can't be ignored if we want some sort of practical gain from such a discussion. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum is basically my point.

July 25, 2015 10:19 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #33

buildingadeck I'm suggesting the decisions you're suggesting we make are our illusion of control. We are set up with a skill set of coping mechanisms and behavioural patterns that are based on our past experiences in a complex conditioning paradigm. I am saying this opportunity you are suggesting is put there by a culmination of chaotic factors beyond our prediction, and the decision we make in that moment is predetermined based on how we won and lost in the past and how we reacted to those experiences.

Epoch, you're on the one hand saying we're not selectively programmed, and on the other hand that "culture values X." How do you mix those two things together? I feel like your feelings of control over the circumstance are directly related to your prior experience and levels of success dealing with adversity...each persons "opportune experience" is something different. I'm aware you didn't imply genetic mutation, I was simply giving a counter example to highlight the importance of the nature vs nurture debate to the conversation.

I indirectly answered your question though by saying my own experience in my own culture one hundred percent answers yes to all of your questions. We should strive for a better existence for all as in the end it makes life better for each person individually. Creating our own enlightened definition of what human rights are, and should be, is noble and by allowing ourselves to set the bar for the rest of humanity, it allows them something to strive for...which in turn should increase global well-being.

To answer your last question subjective I would say yes. I want to feel like we're not wasting our time striving for equality in an unequal world and trying to educate older, less "enlightened" generations in parts of the world far less progressive than our western culture. My understanding of our objective reality is that time will pass, as will the proverbial torch and we will have hopefully assimilated the less enlightened cultures enough to achieve a higher level of global well-being than we currently exist within. My feelings suggest only time will tell, and that I can only influence those in my direct vicinity to the level that my arguments are deemed valid. Education and patience is what we can control, and by better understanding the human condition we can add to the legacy we've left behind for future generations and hopefully influence our ambassadors to spread a similar message to those gifted with a different history and circumstance.

So...I just flat out disagree with the statement life doesn't exist to procreate. I'm sorry, that's just my stance. Our social and technological world advances just to make survival easier so procreation is safer. We don't have 8 kids (generally) any more because survival rates are up. We also kick psychopaths off the ice because it's better for society. I recognize in our culture at this period of time rape is more about power and control than procreation, but how does accumulating the most wealth and safety in order to procreate successfully differ...really. Even love could be construed as a rationalized justification of a mixture of pheromonal and physical arousal and a feeling of safety and security gleaned from our social experience mixed up with our own histories.

July 25, 2015 11:09 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #34

Oh and Epoch, I choose "acceptance" over "resignation." Resignation just leads to resentment so you have to change the perspective first. Not everyone gets lemons and makes lemonade, my goal is to use a strengths based approach to show them they can adapt...somehow.

July 25, 2015 11:35 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #35

"it's the people programmed to strive for excellence with the opportune set of arisen circumstances to make the required changes that do make them."

As I said, success, achievement, betterment, and general improvement in the quality of life are goals in all cultures and societies. They don't need to be "programmed" in order to exist. Humans seem to figure it out on their own no matter where, when, or how they lived.

As for the opportune experience bit, your response does nothing to further validate your earlier claim. We don't require opportune circumstances. Many of the history-making actions taken in the name of human advancement have been made in precisely inopportune circumstances. It isn't necessitated that the planets align for you before you can make any progress at all. Do favorable circumstances tend to make progress easier? Yes. But to say that change requires opportune circumstances or that it is brought about only by people who capitalize on them is naive.

And if you do agree that progress is a worthwhile end and means, then how do you contextualize that conclusion given the naturalistic fallacy from earlier and the proposition that human rights are a farce?

I've read various reports that explain olfactory satisfaction or attraction as a biological function for finding potential mates with suitably different genetic material. So perhaps there's something to be said for love being, on some level, an unconscious function for genetic furtherment. But that said, I think it's a mistake to read as far into human action as you do. Not everything is motivated by a need or desire to procreate. Yes, humans procreate. Yes, humans enjoy procreating. But that's not the sole motivator for human action, and neither is it a motivator for all human action.

July 25, 2015 11:41 p.m.

O-higgs says... #36

Life perpetuates itself, sure. But purpose implies intent and meaning. And in a random, indifferent universe that's a hard pill to swallow. Life exists, because some chemicals mixed just right and formed reactions that self-replicate. That quality wasn't intended or designated, it was an accident. That's function, not purpose.

July 25, 2015 11:52 p.m.

O-higgs says... #37

Also, just a side note, the idea of the western world being more enlightened, and somehow better than other regions is down right laughable. The western world itself being a very ethnocentric concept favoring the cultures of Caucasian peoples is bias from the get-go. What group of people has killed more people and wiped out more ethnic groups than those of the western world? I mean fuck, Africa is has been fucked six ways to Sunday, and is still widely suffering, all because western civilization wanted free labor.

July 26, 2015 12:11 a.m.

MindAblaze says... #38

People need to learn how to attain success. They require a learning environment while developing that fosters their strengths and allows them to work within the confines of their weaknesses. As pieces of a bigger culture were fed all kinds of ideas about what success is...would you suggest this isn't "programming?"

I'm suggesting people with a certain set of skills seize (or create) opportunities for changes. They're what's opportune for the moment I guess. Put a person with a different skill set in the same situation and you get a different result. I would be hesitant to believe that any great thinker/artist/business person was without some kind of history and structure that was supportive of them achieving what they do.

I have yet to see compelling evidence that there are ulterior motivators behind having our needs met other than procreation. Maslow's Hierarchy has a whole bunch of needs that we seek to meet and we meet (or do not meet) those needs in ways that we have been conditioned to do so. By meeting our needs we are more emotionally and physically stable. We can create a better environment, be better parents, support our mates and create environments more fertile for overall growth, individual and collective. I don't see how any of that, in the end, does anything but make us better candidates for mating... Or we can have all the dysfunctional relationships that we have along the way with people that help us avoid meeting our own needs by needing/demanding that we meet theirs.

My theory is that "success, achievement, betterment and general improvement in the quality of life" are goals for a reason and that's why they seem to be universal...what need does that fulfill? The way I see it...safety and security for your offspring, and their offspring.

The prisoner's dilemma game suggests the concept of overall betterment exists because it's in your best interest (reciprocity.) Again...why am I bettering myself and others? What needs are being met by doing that?

July 26, 2015 12:17 a.m.

MindAblaze says... #39

@ O-Higgs I would not for a minute argue against chaos, by all means life exists in the face of all probabilities. Just that humans have made many changes to continue their own survival and create "ease." Again, I ask for your alternative solution other than "it just happens." I'm arguing against purpose.

I agree, western civilization tends to think it's more enlightened while time after time we've given out Smallpox blankets, sterilized a generation of "lesser intellects" and taken children from their communities to "civilize" them...but that was my point. We discuss human rights as though we're entitled to our version of them.

July 26, 2015 12:24 a.m.

O-higgs says... #40

I'm still waiting for an argument that isn't just based around the premise that 'things fuck and have offspring, so that must be the inherent purpose of life'. So far it just seems like a conflation of an incidental function with an imposed, idea of purpose. There are people that live life without having kids simply because they don't want to. And are often happy with it. Thus, their behavioral means are not for procreation as their end. What of them? Free will overriding billions of years of genetic programming.

July 26, 2015 12:48 a.m.

MindAblaze says... #41

And if you do agree that progress is a worthwhile end and means, then how do you contextualize that conclusion given the naturalistic fallacy from earlier and the proposition that human rights are a farce?

I realize my history is in the category of people with opportunity...less than some and more than many so I can on the one hand say "my history makes me think there should be basic human rights," and on the other hand recognize the constraints that exist to a point where I don't have much hope that anything but time and our efforts on a micro scale will change things.

I think the perception that we have control over our lives does people a great deal of good. I think allowing the natural progression of life on a macro level to be within our means to control by deceiving ourselves with the concept of free will gives us the opportunity to be aware of our patterns. By being aware of our patterns we will feel pressure/guilt to either act or not. We have the right to not act. That being said, many people are stuck in inaction (due to their history and circumstances,) and those people fall under the care of the people who are in action.

Is it the responsibility of the powers that be to account for the lesser trained, or do we ascribe it to "personal responsibility." I know the 35 year old alcoholic who lives with his on again off again girlfriend, his adult siblings and their mother in her home is stuck in that situation due to a combination of felt responsibility, obligation and anxiety/self-doubt...I personally believe the state should support his efforts to get out...if he makes them.

But it's the subjective experience..."why should my tax dollars let the drug addict/alcoholic live for free" ...while he's struggling to deal with his traumas and addiction to try and live clean and get a job; "F that he's failed, we may as well euthanize..." His reality is determined by his environment, and he cannot effectively meet his needs (but sex is still a priority.) For me, from a human rights standpoint, someone should step in...but that's the ethical question. Who and what does that teach him?

Honestly, my experience suggests that there is a thin line between "human rights" and "entitlement." Does a person deserve the bottom level of Maslow's Hierarchy? level two? At what point does unionized environment, $40+ dollars an hour and subsidized living expenses become a right. Obviously you can't compare first world nations to third world nations on "standard of living" but it just points to an experience of "rights" as something we create based on what we've experienced. If we seek to assimilate Sub-Saharan Africa in the name of "human rights" how are we any different than the Catholic Church and the residential school experience.

July 26, 2015 1:09 a.m.

MindAblaze says... #42

I think people deceive themselves into believing they don't want kids. This isn't coming from the "maybe they had a shitty childhood" camp, but that can play into it. I think there are a lot of people who accept it or regret it once the opportunity is missed, but I can't honestly believe that raising children is something people are just cool with not doing unless there's some other trauma that's getting in the way. People in the LGBT community adopt and/or artificially inseminate as raising children is something humans are "supposed to" do. Ie; Loving and nurturing relationships are modelled as highly valued things.

Denying "billions of years of genetic programming" is 1) ignoring the fact I'm talking about human behaviour which has only been around for thousands of years, and 2)assuming it's free will that's responsible. I don't believe we have free will, I believe everything we do is a function of something we did before. We felt sad, we made it go away, we felt angry we made it go away, hungry, thirsty, horny...we make them go away. Look at the porn industry for Christ's sake, it fulfills a need that isn't better met elsewhere.

I feel like you're oversimplifying something I've already admitted is incredibly complex suggesting an infinite number of variables. I do believe at the core of it all life exists to propagate more life, and humans just have an incredibly complicated system to do it within. In the end we're just meat.

July 26, 2015 1:34 a.m.

incarceratedGeneticist says... #43

Well after thinking about this human life does not seem to have any "purpose" whatsoever, due to being created by totally random circumstances as far as we know. Therefore this seems to suggest that we should live lives for our own pleasure, and there is no "obligation" to any person to attempt to better society as a whole. However this is quite depressing in my opinion. Could it be that the lasting satisfaction gained from activity that helps others than yourself is the whole point of the activity itself? Opinions, anyone?

July 26, 2015 1:41 a.m.

guessling says... #44

I am not a student of philosophy formally. My experience with this stuff comes from the logic (math) and religious (apologetics) camps (just being fair about where I am coming from).

1.What is the purpose of philosophy?

I think this varies. Philosophy offers many different things. For some it provides a common language for communicating with others about abstract concepts. For some it is a way to rationalize or justify. For some it is a tool or quest for truth or meaning. Frankly, some people just think they are smarter than someone else, and that is enough to keep them interested.

Along the same lines, I believe that philosophy is driven by more than logic and reasoning. Perfect logic based on imperfect assumptions can lead to a lot of silliness. When people go about choosing their base set of assumptions about things, it usually has a lot to do with their own aesthetics and feelings. Interpreting raw fact to produce assumptions involves filtering, choosing focus, assigning importance, interpretation of facts into a specific "story" that we have chosen to tell ourselves over and over, and translation between circumstances. All of this may be done uniquely by two different individuals so that they may draw completely different conclusions from the same raw facts, even if they are objective.

2.What are the most valuable virtues, ideas, or principles to philosophy?

I think there is one set of things that are prerequisites for philosophy. This would include things like logic and language (clear definitions and methods of expression). I think that I may have mentioned some of the virtues in my answer to number one.

I would also note that honesty, listening to others, and resisting the urge to "win" are all very helpful for any discussion of philosophy.

3.Is there such a thing as objective truth? Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, how is it established?

I think that there is, but grasping and defining it is another matter. If it exists it may be impossible to have a perfect image or understanding of it (let alone its implications). Uncertainty is a thing and over the course of time the things we are trying to define, explain, or justify can change.

I don't think it is established by us, it just is. We all make our own conclusions from it (along the lines of what I discussed in number 1).

Luckily, it is not usually necessary for people to agree on interpretations of objective reality. They can usually just get by with making decisions that include negotiations, agreements, and concessions in a moment.

4.What is your stance on human rights? Do we have human rights? Are human rights limited?

I think that if our society decides that we do then we have them, in one sense. In another sense, though, there are some things that relate to inward choices, outward actions, and decisions in general that are totally inalienable and inviolate. Rights like those are limited by consequences that may not have anything to do with what any group of people decided or wanted.

According to my aesthetics and feelings, I like the idea of human rights because I am a human and feel enough empathy with others of my species to empathize with them. If they get these rights then so do I. I want these rights so I think that one way I can get them for myself is to promote EVERYONE having them. I think that rights like this promote the psychological/emotional health of human beings which is just as important as physical health.

@O-Higgs

re: "There are people that live life without having kids simply because they don't want to. And are often happy with it. Thus, their behavioral means are not for procreation as their end. What of them? Free will overriding billions of years of genetic programming."

I resemble this comment! I believe species promotion has a lot to do with diversification. It is not always advantageous for a population to pump out the maximum babies possible. It is not optimal for all gene sets to replicate. There are lots of other ways to promote species survival beyond just making babies.

re: Rape and survival

So, since rape is very violent toward women, it would not tend to promote survival. If women are subjected to violence like that then they (and their offspring) have a lower chance of surviving.

Survival involves a lot more than just making offspring. Those offspring need to also grow and continue living. Human beings require nine months of safe and cared-for pregnancy and infants are totally helpless, needing constant attention and care to survive. Objectifying women or their procreative power does nothing to promote either of these highly sensitive features.

Furthermore, survival involves more than just keeping blood pumping and such. Stress has a terrible toll on health and subjecting women to such stress does not promote survival at all. Postpartum depression anyone? Even animals subjected to terrible stress will turn on their offspring. It isn't pretty. It isn't survival.

July 26, 2015 1:43 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #45

Armchair biologists take note - we have never been able to isolate any genetic material that even begins to resemble some kind of pre programmed imperative. Don't give in to shoddy science.

July 26, 2015 1:46 a.m.

guessling says... #46

@ incarceratedGeneticist

"Could it be that the lasting satisfaction gained from activity that helps others than yourself is the whole point of the activity itself? Opinions, anyone?"

To me this sounds like some things I have heard about "becoming a part of something bigger than yourself" It also sounds like something bordering on empathy. I am pretty sure that there is research out there on both of these that correlate such things with feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and fulfillment.

July 26, 2015 1:48 a.m.

Jay says... #47

So I haven't read all of the above comments due to time constraints and the intimidating nature of big blocks of text, but I figure I'll leave my basic philosophy here for y'all.

I consider myself an Optimistic Existential Nihilist. It sounds kind of contradictory, but to explain: I'm an existential nihilist. I believe there is no "purpose" to life other than those we imagine up for ourselves, and that all existence is just the product of a bastard numbers game. The reason I prefix my above name, though, is because there is an upside to this that basically exists on how one pronounces the phrase, "none of it matters." Because indeed it doesn't; everything and everyone is inconsequential. But then again... none of it matters! It's freedom. Total freedom from any code or obligation of existence. Your life is yours to nurture or destroy however you please, and that knowledge is an irrevocable liberty.

Anyway, I'm gonna unsub from this cuz I anticipate multiple conversations overlapping. Tag me if you wanna reply to me specifically. Also, sorry if this didn't make much sense; I don't have much practice manifesting my thoughts on philosophy into anything other than loose notions floating about in my head.

July 26, 2015 1:49 a.m.

incarceratedGeneticist says... #48

After all society is just a construct created on the premise that multiple people working together could create more "happiness" for each individual that could be created from each working alone. So perhaps the betterment of society should in fact be beneficial to one's own happiness, and by extension, a society where what you get out of it is less than what you put in isn't worth contributing to anymore. This of course begs the question: what exactly is a society? Is it your city? Your country? The world? Does the failure of world society to provide for each one of its inhabitants mean it isn't worth living in, or do those who enjoy a better than average standard of living somehow make up for it? Responses would be appreciated!

July 26, 2015 1:54 a.m.

O-higgs says... #49

On addiction, that's something that's going to have to be treated as a medical issue, rather than a social one as we do now. But personal responsibility plays into everyone's lives to some extent. I have someone in my family that struggled with alcoholism, but then he 'took responsibility' for his health and influence on his family, and succeeded in overcoming addiction. Understanding your patterns is what leads to a greater awareness of one's agency. Much anxiety is caused by the realization that one is ultimately responsible for themselves [in many but not all matters to be fair]. It's a trade-off for the understanding of authenticity, and ultimately what freedom one has in the world.

And assigning your own values and purpose to your actions is the best one can do for a fulfilling and meaningful existence. Whether it's looking out for #1, or helping whoever you can.

July 26, 2015 1:55 a.m.

O-higgs says... #50

Ultimately, one's life is up to a tedious combination of choice and circumstance.

On Philosophy

The Blind Eternities forum

Posted on July 25, 2015, 12:59 p.m. by Epochalyptik

CheeseBro says... #2

July 25, 2015 1:11 p.m. 1

Epochalyptik says... #3

July 25, 2015 1:19 p.m. 1

Chandrian says... #4

July 25, 2015 1:23 p.m. 1

ThisIsBullshit says... #5

July 25, 2015 1:27 p.m. Edited. 1

Epochalyptik says... #6

July 25, 2015 1:27 p.m. 1

Epochalyptik says... #7

July 25, 2015 1:29 p.m. 1