|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 28, 2007 6:23:23 GMT -5
What are you guys talking aboot?
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 28, 2007 7:15:22 GMT -5
Can't imagine what the dinner party would be like.
|
|
|
Post by elle on Nov 28, 2007 7:25:31 GMT -5
quite coincidentally, i was reading up on this today for something else, you might find it interesting www.betterhumans.com/forums/1/12840/ShowThread.aspxi haven't read your discussion, but there was a chapter in the god delusion that discussed about why humans have morals independent of religion and i'ts touched up on that thread. an aside: to what extent is the mere repetition of morals from our elders a basic source, ie. simply what our parents taught us as children, or mimicry of our parents actions/words. surely more influential to many people in this age than some book they barely believe in.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 13, 2007 4:47:23 GMT -5
I'm going to throw this quote by Einstein out because I think it addresses a lot of the issues here.. and apparently I lifted a quote from it earlier. And I wanted to bump this thread so Zoff doesn't forget it.. This is my favorite thread in this site.
I basically agree with everything he says here and I think it's beautiful.. Anyone want to argue about it besides Zoff?"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life. What an extraordinary situation is that of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he feels it. But from the point of view of daily life, without going deeper, we exist for our fellow-men--in the first place for those on whose smiles and welfare all our happiness depends, and next for all those unknown to us personally with whose destinies we are bound up by the tie of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labours of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. I am strongly drawn to the simple life and am often oppressed by the feeling that I am engrossing an unnecessary amount of the labour of my fellow-men. I regard class differences as contrary to justice and, in the last resort, based on force. I also consider that plain living is good for everybody, physically and mentally. In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place. To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or of creation generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavours and his judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves--such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine. The ideals which have lighted me on my way and time after time given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind, of preoccupation with the objective, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific research, life would have seemed to me empty. The ordinary objects of human endeavour--property, outward success, luxury--have always seemed to me contemptible." - Einstein, "The World As I See It"
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 20, 2007 18:03:20 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten. I've just been preoccupied. I'll try to post something this evening Just break it up into bite-sized pieces. It will go down easier for both of us that way. And perhaps someone else will actually have the stamina to read what we wrote and contribute. Change the subject if you like even... entertain me Zoff!!!
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 21, 2007 17:53:01 GMT -5
Yay! Man of your word Zoff.. Good thing too, I was about to give up and quit your stinkin' forum. "I like this quote but I don't think the Schopenhauer quote means anything. People can act contrary to their will."- It seems you have misunderstood the quote. Those will's can be a bit tricky so I'm going to write them in color, hopefully it will illuminate something for you: "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will" - So it's really saying the same thing you did - a person can act contrary to his will (his innermost wants) if he chooses (i.e. wills), but he's not completely free to want what he wants (this is strongly influenced by human nature, culture, upbringing, etc etc). You may not agree but it definitely means something, do you see? I happen to agree for the most part. - Read Einstein's surrounding sentences and I think you'll see how he's working with this concept. If it's good enough for Einstein it should be good enough for you! - I'll try to respond to your first post tonight at work, it shouldn't be too crazy busy.. with the holidays and all. peace.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 22, 2007 5:08:58 GMT -5
No Long, don't leave me ! Well... maybe if you start behaving. "Oh no I understood that, but it seems pointless to use it in the context he did. He seems to arguing against free will by saying we can only desire what we desire. Yet by saying you can act contrary to your desires his quote, while true, seems to be rather pointless in this context."- You're talking about Einstein's context right? In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place. - I feel like the quote is perfectly in line with what Einstein is trying to express. Which is what you said basically: we are not completely free to desire what we desire. Are you saying it's pointless because you think he is denying free will and then accepting it in the same statement? If that's what you're saying than I see why you'd have a problem with it. But I'd point back to the dual-meaning of will and, consequently, the double level of freedom that can exist in this discussion. "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will" At this point I will try to elaborate in a very simple way. Imagine that Einstein is suggesting that we have a basic free will as it is most commonly imagined - we can act as we want, we're in control of our bodies and our thoughts (perhaps), through our thoughts we control our bodies and thereby our actions. This would be the blue will, basic freedom. I believe that the "freedom in the philosophical sense" that Einstein refers to is meant to refer to freedom on a deeper level (this is why he qualifies freedom with 'philosophical'), and it is the red will that Schopenhaur was aiming at. In my words this deeper freedom is a freedom of values (and, as I've said, these go hand in hand with emotion). It seems absurd to deny the most basic form of free will, doesn't it? I think there's absolutely no way we can get around the fact that in our experience, which is all we have to go by, we are in control of our actions. I believe philosophy has to take this as a given. What is not a given though, and what is truly a deeply profound philosophical question is: are we completely free to value as we choose to value. That's a big question of course, so I'll leave it aside. Working with their argument though: we may be free to do whatever we want, but we are never completely free to judge (or value, or emotionally respond to) our actions how we would choose; in other words we may have inherent values that we are free to ignore or act in opposition to, but if we do so we are not being true to ourselves in some fundamental way. These inherent values may exist on an unconcious level, as opposed to the concious level where it seems we're completely free to do as we please (in a messy way we can see this as Id vs. Ego (sorta), or Jung's ego vs. universal unconcious). I know this is a weak development of this point, but I don't want to develop it unless you agree with me how Scho and Ein fit here. They may be wrong, that's fine. Do you see where I'm going with the distinction and why I feel that the quote fits perfectly with what Einstein is saying? "WHy are you working on a Saturday for heaven's sake?"- I work every weekend, graveyard shift. Hospitals never close.. peace. (yup, I miss Miaim)
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 22, 2007 7:42:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 23, 2007 0:34:33 GMT -5
I think that for morals to have any real force and significance individuals should strive to hold values that they feel should be held more or less universally ( I suppose this is kinda like Kant's categorical imperative). Moral absolutism does not have to be religious or supernatural in nature, it could be merely based on an interpretation of human nature. Mentioning interpretion though, it's clear that there will always be countless interpretations of any moral code (even one based on a relatively clear-cut authority (e.g. ten commandments).
So, I guess I have to admit that it's an impossibility, but that we should at least live in a way that we'd like all others to live, and clearly we could include tolerance of others as part of a 'universal morality'.
- I'll go back and answer that previous post of yours when I get the chance, maybe tonight.
|
|
|
Post by jewbird on Dec 23, 2007 18:20:07 GMT -5
On the other hand, isn't it the philosopher's moral duty to see to it that the world conforms to his view of things?
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 27, 2007 23:55:32 GMT -5
Sure, everyone's duty not just the philosopher's.. philosophers aren't gods though, so "see to it that the world conforms" wouldn't exactly be my choice of words.. We all should do what we can; personally living up to your own standards is mighty hard enough without worrying about what everyone else is doing.. and it's where everyone needs to start obviously.
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 31, 2007 21:33:04 GMT -5
I don't see the point of moral or ethnics if they have any strange religious origins behind them (like not to corpulate before marriage for many religions).
|
|
|
Post by long on Jan 2, 2008 17:56:50 GMT -5
I think we can imagine that these 'strange religious' morals once stemmed from practical considerations.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jan 3, 2008 11:56:45 GMT -5
I extend my thanks to Zoff and long for a most entertaining discussion.
Have either of you read "Atheist Manifesto" by Michel Onfray?
Gives an interesting slant to Kant, as well as a few of the previously mentioned topics.
|
|
|
Post by long on Jan 4, 2008 1:06:51 GMT -5
Thanks. Anything at all to add to the discussion? Haven't read it, but I do have a good bit of exposure to atheist thought; it made me very cranky and cynical so maybe I'll avoid that book for a while. But I always like recommendations, so thanks.
|
|