On Philosophy
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on July 25, 2015, 12:59 p.m. by Epochalyptik
A place to discuss philosophy, including your own personal beliefs, prevailing philosophical ideas, moral or ideological quandaries, and more. Feel free to propose new topics and ideas for consideration.
Questions to get started and guide the discussion:
- What is the purpose of philosophy?
- What are the most valuable virtues, ideas, or principles to philosophy?
- Is there such a thing as objective truth? Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, how is it established?
- What is your stance on human rights? Do we have human rights? Are human rights limited?
It's very likely that some of the topics and arguments raised here will touch on sensitive topics. Remember that the goal of this thread is to stimulate intellectual discussion. Post productively. Substantiate your claims. Don't be afraid to acknowledge issues or positions.
Lastly, be responsible and civil. Remember that there's a difference between respecting a person and respecting an idea. You are free to disagree with anything anyone says during this discussion, but you are not free to harass or demean others on the basis of what they believe.
incarceratedGeneticist says... #2
@O-Higgs So you're sort of saying that the purpose of every person's life is to find a purpose? That is a very interesting concept.
July 26, 2015 2:07 a.m.
incarceratedGeneticist says... #3
As for the four questions
In my opinion philosophy is just the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
Most important concepts? Maybe logic and reasoning, as most philosophical arguments cannot be backed up by empirical evidence.
Objective truth and morality? Well, if there is one, nobody's found it yet.
Human rights are a human invention. We do not "have" them unless they are agreed to be given to us. They are merely convenient as things that everybody should have, if your goal is the preservation and betterment of humanity.
July 26, 2015 2:16 a.m.
kind of. no one has a purpose, so it's more practical to make your own based on your own ideals and values.
July 26, 2015 2:22 a.m.
@ O-Higgs Do you think it is all totally internally driven? What do you think about "callings" or "opportunities" that may come up in life unlooked for and unexpectedly?
My thought is that we decide how to respond but that all of these opportunities and calls may not be totally just within us - but part of it is in us, the part that responds as we decide to.
July 26, 2015 2:30 a.m.
With callings I've always thought of it as a result of internal values aligning with the qualities and functions of a certain activity or occupation as a way to express those values externally in a practical, tangible way. The decision to act is always just like any other decision. Utterly dependent on the clash between the desire of the individual and the circumstances of their life.
July 26, 2015 2:50 a.m.
I think alignment makes sense, although I have to admit that there have been times when I felt "pressure" that wasn't maybe necessarily a "calling" even if others thought it was because it lacked exactly that - alignment.
I would suppose that a person's conceptualization of truth, morality, and their philosophy would have a lot to do with that alignment - as well as other factors like their usefulness or availability etc.
July 26, 2015 2:55 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
Let's consider some additional questions.
It seems that most of us can agree that human rights are at least a good idea. Are they worth pursuing globally? Are they necessary for the function of modern societies? Are there downsides to a universal system of human rights?
Further, if you agree that there should be human rights, what is the nature of those rights? If you don't agree, what rights do you disagree should be granted?
July 26, 2015 8:56 a.m.
incarceratedGeneticist says... #9
Well a good starting point for human rights would be of course "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That's probably all that is required in my opinion.
July 26, 2015 4 p.m.
I think human rights are more necessitated by cultural and political differences than by some like overarching global need.
If our economic climate was different then the human right defending affordable healthcare for every individual could well be unnecessary. Therefore I think the fact that they have to be written down is a indictment of our economic priorities and the way our states work.
I think these are issues because we /made/ them issues essentially.
July 26, 2015 4:12 p.m.
As long as a person isn't hurting or hindering another's agency or quality of life, directly or indirectly, they have the right to do whatever.
That's an interesting point on health care, and is certainly relevant in the present landscape. But I think it also touches upon the issue that even in a booming economy, there will always be people that cannot afford health care. There are those that are relegated to the lower-middle and lower class and will not escape that socio-economic status to no fault of their own. Some can, but most will not. And it's those people that raise the question of how much a society can turn one's personal health into a financial privilege. It's these aspects of placing capital and economics above the realities of human life that systematically infringe upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So good economy or bad, there is health care reformation of some kind that's needed to put such an important and vital institution in line with our national beliefs. [if we are indeed talking from an American standpoint, but this can be extended to the world as far as I'm concerned, but that's just me]
July 26, 2015 7:42 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
For reference.
July 27, 2015 5:42 p.m.
incarceratedGeneticist, I wouldn't say it justifies anything. If you kill someone, I believe it is inconsequential. Fucked up? Sure. But it doesn't matter. In 5 minutes the news forgets, a day for sensitive listeners, a year for coworkers, a lifetime for family. Eventually, though, it will not have mattered either way. Murderer and victim would both be lost to time.
Not endorsing murder here lol. Just explaining my thoughts.
The difficulty with my accepting this though is that as an existentialist I do believe to an extent that every life is it's own "universe" if you will. Not to sound sci-fi, but even if there's only one material existence every observed form is different from person to person. If you kill a person, you destroy an entire plane of existence. Their perspective presented a unique facet of the universe and you extinguished it.
That, if nothing else, seems a damn shame.
July 28, 2015 3:14 a.m.
incarceratedGeneticist says... #15
Jay, I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. I find that last comment of yours very interesting, about each person's unique perspective of reality. Building on that, could you also say that their possible future creations/inventions/ideas being lost is also a reason why murder is bad? Because while people being sad is the main impact, in the long term what really matters is why they are sad. And that would be because they have learnt to appreciate that person's contribution to life, something unique that they add to the experience of everyone else. And that, as you said, seems a damn shame.
July 28, 2015 4:17 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
The value of a human life is not measured in the fondness or ephemerality of its memory. Statistical inconsequentiality and philosophical inconsequentiality are entirely different matters.
July 28, 2015 4:52 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #18
I've started reading very fast after about 30(?) comments, so I apologize for any missed points that would have affected this post.
On "purpose"
There is no such thing as inherent purpose. There is purpose as result of (sub-)conscious decisions, but no inherent purpose in any physical phenomenon such as gravity or living organisms. The illusion of inherent purpose is perceived when we project our experience of exerting our will (be it free or not) onto causal but random occurrences in the physical world.
For example, procreation, survival and the drives that make complex lifeforms pursue them are not inherent purposes of living organisms, but only attributes that caused those creatures to persist.
On human rights, morals, and concepts in general
If one could grind the universe into a fine powder and sift through it all, one would not find a single grain of honor, love, truth, or justice. All those are not things, they are concepts. They do not objectively exist. They are ideas that we have made up and apply to our perception of the world. And yes, that also applies to widely accepted concepts as human rights, moral codes or any deed being inherently good or bad. Those are made up concepts that we made up and widely agreed on. None of it is objectively true.
But does that mean these concepts do not exist at all, or are not important? Well, on a completely objective level, they are not important. On a completely objective level, there is no such thing as importance; importance implies an application of value which is not objective. On a completely objective level, our entire species (or any other) is not of any importance.
But we are humans. We are conscious beings. We are not objective by our very nature. We do apply values. Things are important to us.If it is important to us, then it is important. It's that simple. Even if it exists only in our minds and cultures because we defined it, then it still does exist.
To apply that to human rights, murder and rape, they are objectively neither good nor bad and completely unimportant. We defined them to be good or bad and deem them important. And so they are.
August 9, 2015 11:35 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #19
Wait, what? There's a second page of comments? And I missed it? Is it philosophy if I end sentences that are definite statements with question marks?
incarceratedGeneticist says... #1
@Jay Optimistic Existential Nihilist, huh. Sounds sorta similar to what I believe in - however doesn't this mean that killing etc. that are generally considered bad by society are perfectly fine by you in any circumstance? Because that's something I would find distasteful if it ultimately didn't matter.
July 26, 2015 2:04 a.m.