View Full Version : What good is Philosophy
flatwater
05-15-2009, 06:05 PM
I,m not a student of philosophy as you well may have noticed by now , but what I don't understand is when you read about a philosopher I come away with the feeling that here is a person who just sits around thinking up ideas that have never really been put to the test. Some of my more intellectual friends like to buy into the notion of one size fits all
MIKENSUE
05-19-2009, 11:50 PM
philosophy is a category, that in my mind, I put on the parallel with wisdom. It is something that my grandparents imparted into my life, but yet being the same age they were when they imparted their thoughts and wisdom, do not feel worthy of passing it on to my grandchildren.
I wonder how much will be retained by them when we are gone.
I kick myself for not picking my parent's brains for wisdom, the reasons for living their lives the way they did etc. when they were " growing up".
I look at the word philosophy and think wisdom. Not just a person who sits around thinking, but a person who thinks about living.
Sue
Peace,
Socrates,
470?- 399 b.c.e.
Born in athens during the cities golden age, lived there his entire life , with the exception of a military tour of duty. He married and had three children. Skilled as a stone mason.
Philosophy however was his calling , as he would walk the streets of athens and pose simple questions to people as to start a dialouge that would induce critical thinking. IE. What is Justice? What is piety? , What is good? , What is right? etc etc.
He wanted to know what others knew about these concepts, more often then not it became clear that they knew very little. In this process , which was inspiring the youth but infuriating the establishment and many others , he enlightened his listeners to the importance and complexity of philosophical questions.
EVERY THING MUST BE OPEN TO QUESTION--
His trial and demise are well known as are the accusation and bogus charges. Most famous for the socratic method and redefintion of what philosophy is ,the father of WESTERN philosophy summed it up as follows:
GOOD IS KNOWLEDGE, the greatest cause of evil is ignorance, (to be unaware, or devoid of truth), and the only way to live a worthwhile life is to critically assess it.
"THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING"
Peace
Peace,
There is plenty more of the basics in philosophy on the back pages. 101 102 etc. I attempted some time back to bring forth these concepts, when the forum was a really tough crowd.
In a nut shell philosophy, or the love of wisdom has a prime goal for the participants to promote wisdom and understanding, reduce or resolve conflict, and to examine life for the good.
Sound philosophy comes from true wisdom, universal wisdom, it comes from you, and your own deduction of truth based on your experience and what you think about those experiences.
It should not come from a racial view, or a creed, or even a national view as these are not universal truths and to often at best will leave the participants agreeing to disagree. Unresolved or worse creating more conflict.
Race, creed, nation, fall under "cultural relativism" meaning if one is not from said culture, creed, or race they may not understand or agree with mentioned philosophies of those "cultures" "creeds" or "national" beliefs.
The toughest part of philosophy for me was the class room paradigm of "how not to use philosophy" or why certain philosophies fail and their text book names, ie cultural relativism, absolutism, deontological, teleological,cosmological, causal, design...... After much time and effort I realized it must be this way because, the alternative is akin to telling folks HOW to think, and most folks, and myself included, care not for being told, but rather endeavor to discover own their own, it is the only way to find and except your own truth.
Philosophy is not so much how TO think, but a science of the thinking process.
333
flatwater
05-20-2009, 06:40 PM
I guess I can buy the thinking process part but if your own truth is not really truth but a set of, shall we say rules, that one has chose to live by , then how does that fit in with philosophy because I would see that as a false philosophy especially if it harmed others
Peace,
Precisely,
As we grow and live we change, the philosophy of ones youth is not the same as the philosophy of ones adolescence, like wise the philosophy of ones adult hood etc. Truths are revealed through self examination.
The purpose of ones philosophy is to promote the good, resolve conflict, and justify their action. If ones philosophy contradicts any of these parameters it is flawed and must be re examined. In the end honest folk, honest with themselves will realize their are simple truths the every one can agree with, promoting harmony in their lives and those around them.
IE. There are many living religions on the planet, that is to say spiritual paths that are still practiced by millions. At the top of all of these spiritual paths the "cardinal" rule is the same. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Honest folks all agree with this maxim, hence it is good philosophy. This paradigm would work just as well on its own as it does attached to a faith system. Good philosophy. Plain, simple, concise, forthright, promoting harmony, resolving conflict.
It is not so much your own rules, as it is universal guidelines, that would be extremely hard to refute with logic and reason.
The trouble is so many people wish not to dwell here because it may change the way they believe, a way they may have supported for their whole lives. The last thing any one wants is to realize they may have been mistaken in their belief system. Religious, race, political, national, etc.
My father is a very good man, a smart man, a dedicated father, grand father, great grand father, and husband,
If I were to prove with out a shadow of a doubt to him that his beliefs were flawed it would destroy his whole life's pursuit. This would not be good philosophy.
The truth is for him to discover through his own pursuits. This he has done over the last few years, and subjects we used to butt heads on are now open for civil debate and discourse, subjects that would have ended poorly to say the least 10 years ago.
333
flatwater
05-21-2009, 06:18 PM
The same thing happened with me and my dad. When I got out of boot camp I was amazed at how much my dad had grown up.
Peace,
That was priceless, LOL
It is truly amazing how, the older the child becomes the smarter the parent is....
333
rAcErRicK
05-26-2009, 05:28 AM
Great thread Guys, and sooo very true ! *;)
And you know, once that level is attained, it never really ends. My Grandfather has been gone for over 55 years, but his wisdom still comes to me on a regular basis, as well as several others, and my appreciation for it continues to grow. *
Steve_L
06-21-2009, 11:54 AM
I,m not a student of philosophy as you well may have noticed by now , but what I don't understand is when you read about a philosopher I come away with the feeling that here is a person who just sits around thinking up ideas that have never really been put to the test. Some of my more intellectual friends like to buy into the notion of one size fits all
I agree! I, too, see the problem with philosophy is that they never do a test to see if their hypothesis matches the real world. They just keep building on their errors, and depending on which errors you decide to believe in determines what your philosophy is.
TO me, a philosophy is a way of life. So, these "it all doesn't matter, we're not real anyway so lay down and die" philosophies are fallacies as they don't meet the purpose. Any philosophy that exterminates or enslaves those who follow it are also false philosophies.
Peace,
Yes, correct, spot on. A sound philosophy promotes harmony and peace. "The good life" as socrates would have us aspire toward. But........ There are several lines of thought on the next comment, still....there are two major sectors to philosophical thought at their base. One would be the individualist and the other is the collectivist. IE: Scorates = Individualist, John Locke= Individualist, The notion that a man is sovereign, this is to say, duty is to "he" and "his" come first, then his civic duty to state or city or nation, etc. If you put your own house in order it is enough for the "good" life.
IE: Plato=collectivist, Karl Marx= collectivist, The notion that a man's duty is to his state or nation above him self and that which he has belongs to the state, or the people as a whole, as the are supposed to be the "STATE"
Ones philosophy is their "way of life based on their reason" if it is a good life, morally true, and resolved it would be safe to say it is a good philosophy. Even more accurate is the posit that philosophy seems to be untested and based on failure, this is due to the nature of how one "does" philosophy, from the negative trying to refute or debunct the reason or logic. Sounds weird but accurate.
OK fathers day, and I am summoned for cookies and pudding and pie....aahhhh "the good life."
Peace
333
flatwater
06-21-2009, 09:39 PM
So by what you say I would classify Obama as being a collective or Marxist. Am I correct?
Peace,
An Accurate assement, which is why some many folks seemed confused with the nomenclature of politcal parties, call a square a square, and a triangle a triangle.
Policy that mandates constituants to put their nation or state before themselves, or removes the true apportioned voice of the people in said application of legislation is collectivism or worse as this path is known always to lead to despotism or worse.
A rose is a rose, and a terd is a terd, matters not how much chocolate you coat it with, it will just be a chocolate covered.........
333
flatwater
06-22-2009, 06:25 PM
Well said 333 and understood
333 - In a nut shell philosophy, or the love of wisdom has a prime goal for the participants to promote wisdom and understanding, reduce or resolve conflict, and to examine life for the good.
Wax- Bull!!! But them I am likely part of that 'tough crowd' you mention.
Philosaphy is not about emotion and could not care less if conflict is reduced or increased by its study.
This 'junk religion' concerning phylosaphy was produced by the beatnik hippy liberal clap-trap invasion of so called higher education and appears to focus on a lack of understanding concerning the very concept of "good".
The reader who wishes to understand what philosaphy actually is should search for Cultural relativism because this has been the standard for the last 40,000 years and of course it has nothing to do with promoting love or anything else for that matter.
The search for knowledge has no good and no bad it just means that searching for it is good in itself and it does not judge what may or may not be found.
The killer discovers that executing the children of his newly defeated foe bring the females into heat and allows him to sire biological offspring (he has a love of discovery and most mammals... lions in particular, will do this).
Some of course reject such a thing as philosaphy because it is not warm and fuzzy and does not promote the poltical agenda those few have decided philosaphy should be used for.
The good news of course is that much like nature philosaphy does not care.
The reduction of conflict thing of course cracks me up the most.
People who pretend this is a process (goal) of philosaphy will quote Sacrates after pointing out he was in the military and that he lists ignorance as the greatest evil and not slitting an enemies throat and drinking a warm cup of his... or her blood!
Ignorance of who your enemy is... where your enemy can be found... and how to kill your enemy is a great evil indeed!
Peace,
Correct, emotions have nothing to do with philosophy, yet emotivism is integral with the process of philosophy. The vehicle one drives to and from work could care less if you arrive safely, so one tends to operate with care, understanding the dangers of errant driving is necessary to the prudence of safe arrival. Understanding the dangers of errant philosophy, is much the same.
Cultural Relativism is not philosophy, it is environmental from birth, and the knowledge one gains from their "culture", again the operation of this vehicle in philosophy, has its dangers as not everyone comes from the same culture. Transcending myopic view points, and stepping into a world of larger understanding does not imply one must fore sake their own culture.
The search/ study/ of/ for knowledge is epistemology, another integral part of doing philosophy, yet again not philosophy in itself, as the knowledge itself may be off the mark do to the source. I used to be able to fix everything on my own vehicle, a knowledge that would be considered priceless in a culture dependent on vehicles.
Today how ever vehicles are not designed for the average mechanically inclined fella to repair himself so the knowledge is rendered insufficient, long gone are the days where any individual could possibly learn everything there is to know.
Peace and conflict are the results of choices humans make, agreed they are not good or bad individually, humans have mastered the art of war, through out the eons they have rendered it an exact science, which leaves me to wonder what the world would be like if that much effort was directed to the implementation of peace.
We can chose to be aggravants and antagonistic, promoting war and perpetuating ignorance, destruction and hate forcing folks to accept these views of the world.
We can chose to be inquisitive, objective and understanding, promoting harmony and tolerance allowing others to grow in knowledge.
All new truths/knowledge posited runs the same course upon revelation,
1. Denial
2. Ridicule
3. Discussion
4. Acceptance
The universe is earth centric, put a fella in dutch with the authorities of the time , but set the discussion in motion. The discussion pursues the truth of the matter to debunk, or support the claim, the claim is put to the test, today we accept that the earth is not the center of the universe. It only took a few hundred years but truth is truth.
Ignorance is evil, no matter what the parameters it is better to have all info available to make a prudent and wise decision.
333
backlash
07-01-2009, 09:51 AM
See "History of the World part 1".
Mel Brooks - I'm a stand up Philosopher.
Bea Arthur -Oh a stand up Bull sh--er
:D
backlash
flatwater
07-01-2009, 06:15 PM
I will stop and reflect some times , not what I have learned from books or school but what I have learned from applying that knowledge and tweeking it to make it work better , then sharing that knowledge with others. Knowledge not applied is like pretend jelly on your bread.
333 - Cultural Relativism is not philosophy
Wax- That is like claiming that moral relativism is not philosaphy or any other constructural stance; as you point out the driver often dictates points of views and often does this with intent.
As you have pointed out events are the result of choice and since there can be no "good" or "evil" in philosaphy other than the moral question of course (which should always be prefaced in regard to what is perceived as "good" by the actor and by the observer and nothing more or less).
In the end that is where philosaphy really becomes an issue and why it is so intregal to human existance.
What is morality? Is "murder" always wrong and when is killing another human not murder?
What is a human, and if we can define that then why (or of course why not) is any other form of life secondary in import?
It is clear of course at the start that you and I have bipolar stances concerning any number of these questions and any others. But that in a nutshell is what philosaphy is; a contruct to allow discourse in different perspective.
Cultural relativism is philosaphy, it explains why the ego finds "good" and condemns "evil"
Peace and love was an extremely bad thing to a Spartan; in fact it was evil.
Burning an infidel is not only good to some it is evil not to take such action.
US verses THEM.
Philosaphy is most important because it requires the basic question of why are we US and why are they THEM.
Man doesn't function very well in peace according to known human history; yet many such as yourself not only assume man could but automatically pretend that it is a given that such an environment would be a good thing (desirable of course would be a better word but we already pointed out the good verses evil thing).
333 - knowledge is rendered insufficient
Wax- That is an amazing statement. Your example is a good one in the proof of how interesting that statement becomes.
It would seem to imply that knowledge is not linear... and that might be the largest problem modern society faces because you are certainly not alone in this thought but as a philosapher it places you in an extremely odd position.
The question becomes: Could you convert a modern engine to not require emissions equipment and a computer to run? In other words could you fall back and utilize knowledge if modern society somehow failed and recover quickly or would you simply sit on the side of the road and wait to die if your engine quits and society falls?
It is an essential question that must be answered by all humans.
I can start a fire with a flashlight... with any engine... with any firing cap from any bullet... with two stones (better yet of course one stone and a bit of steel)... with two sticks if required. I can do this because the quest for knowledge can never be allowed to end at the perception of receipt concerning that knowledge.
My ten year old knows how to flick a switch and cause light to enter his darkened room but that will do him absolutely no good if the power is out.
One does not need to be a survivalist to understand why the concept of knowledge is so very important. Society does not need to end to prove that the majority of modern man fails to seek knowledge to the estent he should.
Every year some idiots drag an LP grill into the living room during a power outage and kill themselves and every loved one in the room. Knowledge needed... but perceived to not be required.
Every year some young mother goes off the road during a blizzard near my home and drags her child out of a perfectly warm cave... in which her ancestors would have literally killed to live in all winter... and commits murder/suicide attempting to walk toward some distant light. Knowledge needed... but perceived to not be required.
Many like myself see this as thinning the herd of course but if that is the case than societal collapse would be a good thing because 90% need to go away. I don't worry much about which groups fall into that 90% because I am confident it will be those who write rules and covenants and not those who suffer through them.
But that is what is missing out of modern philosaphy in many ways as well:
Man may pretend he is no longer bloodthirsty and a killer by paying someone else to cut the cows throat and package it in a tasteful manner but the fact is that a queen bee is still a bee and the easiest way to destroy a hive is to kill the one that can not longer sting you but directs other to in her stead.
Peace,
I will stop and reflect some times , not what I have learned from books or school but what I have learned from applying that knowledge and tweeking it to make it work better , then sharing that knowledge with others. Knowledge not applied is like pretend jelly on your bread.
Lol, pretend jelly. The Tao of Jelly ..........that would be good philosophy.
The sharing of knowledge and wisdom is Philosophy precisely, too many folks think it is just about being argumentative, right or wrong, devisive, or as eloquently put by bask lash a "cow pie artisian" , In my humble opinion this is akin to a smear campaign.
Their are a myriad of labels concerning philosophical dispositions, ie.. Cultural Relativism, Categorical Imperatives, Moral Imparitves, Telolgoical, ontological, cosmological, deontological, emotivism, and on and on, these things are only small tools in the act of doing philosophy. Flatwater, thank you, I will most likley not, forget the "Tao of Jelly",
perahps we can expand the subject.......
333
flatwater
07-12-2009, 08:52 PM
333 , pick a topic and I will cast the first stone upon the waters. I will leave the jelly to those that need to have their sweet tooth massaged , while we get down to the brass monkey
Peace,
Ok my good man, here is some fat for us to chew upon;
The Problem of Moral Relativism
All of us make moral judgments. Sometimes we even get into heated arguments about the morality of an action or policy. But the widespread disagreement about what is moral--has led many to believe that there are no objective moral standards. if morality is just a matter of personal opinion (absolute subjectivism) , how ever , then there is no more reason to argue about what is right or wrong than there is to argue about what tastes better --chocolate or vanilla.
Our believing something is right doesn't make it right. Doing the right thing seems to involve more than simply doing what you believe in. The notion that morality is subjective faces serious difficulties. But so does the notion that morality is objective. Resolving these difficulties is of the highest importance, for many of the problems we face in society and as individuals are moral ones. It is paramount to be clear about what a persons moral obligations are.
Subjective beliefs are beliefs based on ones personal preference, that is to say, subject, to ones own self, what one has experienced, as well as what one thinks about said "experience". IE. Beliefs nased on the culture one grew up in are "subjective" to that culture, this does not make them right or wrong per say only limited if one has no knowledge of other cultures.
All major religions have moral directives or edicts that attempt to guide folks to do the good in their lives, this morality, is relative, to their culture/ spiritual education. You and I may accept the edict "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". However another may subscribe to the imperative, " do what ye will art harm none ". The verbage may be different but the command seems the same. Would you agree? Are these congruent moral imperatives?
333
Great opening to a very important discussion:
One of the great difficulties in philosaphy is the assumption of known quantity.
So we will use the term "moral" as you defined it: right or wrong, just or unjust, allowed or forbidden, good or bad.
And we strike upon one of the major problems at the outset (and I must say the core of why philosaphy is so very important.
333 - It is paramount to be clear about what a persons moral obligations are.
Wax- Absolutely! I am a purest however and the human psyche is an internal boundary that holds those obligations --- not society (the observer) as many appear to assume. As a purest I see no evidence that one can violate ones own moral code but how to explain:
Hitler believed he was right. A rapist believes that the action which is taken is justified (even if only for the moment of that action and later there is societal or personal guilt) because he could not carry out that action is revulsion of it.
You mention a great edict and point to its universiality but forget that it is more commonly violated than followed and even required to be violated to follow the religious paradigm which produced it.
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a great example, it is of course copied from othe sources but listing it in Biblical text appears to be a good idea until one reads the rest of the text and witnesses the practice of the religion it is supposedly guiding.
This is where cultural relativism really comes into its own.
A Judeo-Christian normally has no problem fitting the above command into the same paradigm as "suffer not a witch to live", but that is because a culture is far more layered and nuanced than the outside observer often assumes (and the dictate to kill witches is a bit dated for the observer but that is only because the observer is not really connecting the dots yet... but more on that later).
I would wish to be treated like a God with every wish granted... I can't really treat others as I would have them treat me, so the "Do no harm" libertarian ideal is a better approach of such a goal.
You and I would disagree about a great many things but the ideal that you present is a good one; just as if people would simply sit down and read only the words Jesus Christ was said to have spoken in the Bible (and I think every person should) they are likely to develop a much different opinion when it comes to the question of Gay Marriage or abortion... or getting rich in life without feeding the orphan at your gates.
The problem with this approach of course is that the Temple has grown and eventually followers would be forced to take action just as Jesus was forced to do.
The culture of Christ is churches not selling ones clothes to feed the poor; the Vatican would be very worried at such an idea.
The American Indian was labeled as a thief by the nice "do what ye will art harm none " crowd but mainly because two cultures often have different foundations concerning morality. To the Indian it was morally wrong to pen a horse which God obviously created for everyone to either befriend or offend. If the horse is not helping another human of course he can free it and ride it... if it runs away then he should have been nicer to it.
The Christians at the time of course preached the same litany you have outlined yet they had no problem with burning entire villages to the ground and undertaking one of the only real examples of modern genocide.
Because morality is a relative thing and it is determined by the culture of the time.
And it is changed by the culture as the culture changes over time.
And the culture is changed by the environment and the rules that are required for basic life... plus something.
So back to the point that Christians do not burn witches today.
Hmmm...
Nothing has really changed.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... unless they are gay. Unless you don't like how they parent the children that they have and would normally be none of your business because you can always pretend it is your business because... well because your culture says you can!
Don't like smokers? Claim it is a financial burden even though common sense dictates that society would rather see a smoker die before the age of 65 because a fast death brought on by cancer id vastely cheaper than a drain on society like someone who lives to be 100.
Demand seat belts and car insurance and well... the culture allows this and you are only doing unto others because they are too stupid to do unto themselves!
Don't like poor people?
Set it up so that your children buy a substance that is forbidden then lock the poor up for selling it to them (you can't lock your own children up for buying it of course because it is a cultural thing).
And that explains exactly why cultural relativism works and why it is often so confusing for an observer: Your children are not really in the same culture as the poor people who sell them the drugs.
Cultures are too often too broadly defined: They are both Americans but there is a divergence inside that larger paradigm/ Many in fact.
Not everyone loves children, not everyone wants to protect them.
In fact there have been times in our universal past in which allowing a child to live during drought or another (pick your emergency) was morally wrong, was in fact an evil sin that could not be forgiven. It was a "harm" and of course we should not do harm to others right?
And that is of course why relativism is not only important but is required.
No parent could love the child they produced and murder them right? Unless the culture they lived in believed that to not do so was wrong. A man today grabs his child and shakes it until it stops crying; while he shook it he believed he had a moral justification to do so... he was tired or strung out and the little tyke just wouldn't stop crying! You and I... and him most likely would have absolutely no problem defining that death as selfish and immoral precisely because our defined morality is provided by the culture in which we live.
Meanwhile the same young man five hundred years ago in the Andes would have us all gathered around him as we witnessed him hold his hand over the childs face and wait for it to stop struggling. We would assist him as he lovingly wrapped the dead body in clothing that took months to make and we would support him as he climbed the sacred hill to offer the child to the Gods in the hope that next year there might be rain.
And what he did would be good, just, morally correct in any way because he would have prefered that his father had done this when he was born and he was only treating the child as he wished he had been treated.
Morality is a much more interesting thing than most consider.
RueTheDay
07-14-2009, 09:06 AM
EVERY THING MUST BE OPEN TO QUESTION--
This I agree with. However, very few are able to put it into practice. Most people have deeply ingrained beliefs that they do not really subject to critical examination.
flatwater
07-14-2009, 07:52 PM
OK so I missed the first stone but here's a skipper I'll throw in.Being a Christian myself I understand the problems of the knowledge of right and wrong , the understanding and the putting to practice that understanding. because we are not perfect we have a limited ability to act on our own understanding or that of our teachers whomever they be. Man has always been a free will agent not governed by a government but by a set of internal laws which are simple and shared by most peoples of the world. and by coincidence they look very similar to the ten commandments. Ten is a pretty simple and small number. But alas comes the highly narcistic intelligent person who says if ten are good then one hundred and ten are even better and since I am more intelligent , I will interpret the rules , hence lawyers were born. So I said that to say this. 333 is correct when said that everything is open to question because without question you cannot find truth. Because of mans internal imprint , if left alone we can pretty well figure things out. It is not enough to just have the knowledge of moral conviction but the wisdom to put into practice. Now I'm just a camp fire philo-saucer and can only relate to what doesn't kill me only makes me better. and that my friends is down to the brass monkey.
Peace,
Moral relativism???
It is difficult to discuss topics while doing philosophy, precisely because one inference
tends to lead into other areas of philosophy. Ones culture is tied to ones morality, as much as ones spiritual path, so we tend to cross subjects when inferring or supporting with evidence.
But alas comes the highly narcissistic intelligent person who says if ten are good then one hundred and ten are even better and since I am more intelligent , I will interpret the rules , hence lawyers were born. So I said that to say this. 333 is correct when said that everything is open to question because without question you cannot find truth.
Mans moral barometer is based in many concepts, his family as a child growing up, his neighborhood and friends as a teen, and his foray into the adult world and the many facets of life he is exposed to making his way. In the end though one must choose for ones self what they believe to be the good. Having experienced good and bad through out this development one comes to the conclusions of what one believes to be good and bad.
For the most part, if kept simple, most folks conclude agreement on the basics, hence we are given judeo/christian/ islamic doctrine and the, ten commandments. This is morally relative to the room being exclusive with folks of these beliefs systems, in which case the people involved already except the edicts of the top ten naturally. However as with the constitution of the USA, over time it is forgotten that these commandments or declared "truths" we all hold self evident, are inherent, unalienable or agreed upon by those who understand them, which leads into cultural relativism, as not everyone knows the commandments or the bill of rights.
So what to do? Question everything? Are the ten commandment meant to free a soul to the happy life? Are the bill of rights meant to control and enslave man or simply to declare his freedoms. All are difficult questions.
One thing is for certain, when other folks start telling people what is good and bad for them red flags should go up in concern, as this is the way of despots/lawyers lol, to create personal/ state "gain" at your expense, or rather it insults us as if we are unable to discern truth on our own.
Moral relativism is culminated in each of us over time and experience, we determine it on own and sometimes we all agree and etch it in stone. As humans evolve so does our wisdom, we hope.
333
flatwater
07-15-2009, 07:21 PM
your right about it being etched in stone. Happened a few thousand years ago. Now a new younger generation wants to change the etching into something more relative to the new times.another way to deal with truth and the good bad and the ugly is the test of time. Alot of "TRUTH" has come and gone but real truth will pass the test of time.
Peace,
The Possibility of the Impossible.
1 THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a material object to have a mind.
2 THE PROBLEM OF PERSONAL IDENTITY
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a person to change yet remain the same person.
3 THE PROBLEM OF MORAL RELATIVISM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be absolute moral standards.
4 THE PROBLEM OF SKEPTICISM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be knowledge.
Quote:
Science with out epistemology (-in so far as it is unthinkable at all-) is primitive and muddled.
--Albert Einstein
333
flatwater
07-17-2009, 06:57 PM
Actually none of those are problems at all for me. There are some things that don't concern me #1 , don't effect me #2 and are beyond my control #3 The problem that I see is priorities. If we set priorities right then most of these other issues will fall into place.Either by erasing the need to know as being a top priority or is so low on your priority list one will never get to it.
Peace,
6 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be evil in a world created by an all powerful, all knowing, all good, being.
Making our belief system consistent is not an easy task , for not only do our individual thoughts and actions depend on the truth of certain philosophical beliefs, but so do many of our institutions. If those beliefs in our "little hobby" turned out to be false, the institutions that rely on them would have to be radically altered or even abolished.
333
flatwater
07-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Thats one of the things I see wrong in philosophy is the what ifs. In my belief system I except certain givens as the truth not by necessarily just the reading of it but over time it has proven correct ( again the test of time ) There are some things that I just except because it is beyond my capability to prove. Like the trinity , it is easier to understand then prove. Thats where faith comes in , again another concept that is not concrete but has been proven over and over to be a viable tool for belief. Now lets look at evil. you are assuming that evil was created. The vessel was created but given a free will very much like ourselves. I believe that God wants us to love and worship him on His own cridentials rather then forcing us to love him because that would not be the kind of love that would be genuine. What happens when one tries to buy their childs love ? It has never worked. God allows evil not as a punishment but as a tool to make us stronger and our faith in him to grow stronger because of the promise that he will see us through those times when evil rears it's ugly head. Now most of what I said will not be heard and understood by a non believer and will be questioned by a philosopher which is a good thing because unless we question we can't find the truth. Now without sounding to deft I believe there are some things that are self evident that don't require a question.
That's one of the things I see wrong in philosophy is the what ifs. In my belief system I except certain givens as the truth not by necessarily just the reading of it but over time it has proven correct ( again the test of time ) There are some things that I just except because it is beyond my capability to prove. Like the trinity , it is easier to understand then prove. Thats where faith comes in , again another concept that is not concrete but has been proven over and over to be a viable tool for belief. Now lets look at evil. you are assuming that evil was created. The vessel was created but given a free will very much like ourselves. I believe that God wants us to love and worship him on His own cridentials rather then forcing us to love him because that would not be the kind of love that would be genuine. What happens when one tries to buy their childs love ? It has never worked. God allows evil not as a punishment but as a tool to make us stronger and our faith in him to grow stronger because of the promise that he will see us through those times when evil rears it's ugly head. Now most of what I said will not be heard and understood by a non believer and will be questioned by a philosopher which is a good thing because unless we question we can't find the truth. Now without sounding to deft I believe there are some things that are self evident that don't require a question.
Peace,
Lets let go of the idea of right and wrong for the purpose of discourse, certainties are subjective, and absolutist, which is every individuals right to or not exercise. There is no right and wrong in the action of "discussion/ question". It would seem to be counter productive if one were not allowed to ask a question because other's are certain it is wrong, ergo no objective discourse will ever succeed.
In philosophy one should avoid assumption, but that is my position. Evil exists,
and in this humble mans perspective it is the actions of man that are evil, not the will of a fallen angel. When a thing or thought seems to be beyond comprehension it would seem most prudent to ask those questions above all. Human History is full of growth by question and answer. The world is flat. Ooops. The earth is the center of the universe. Ooops. Illness and disease are the act and will of "God". Ooops. The more question we as a species ask and answer, the more questions those new truths create. And so on and so on.
I do understand what you convey, and I am not a NON believer, I just hold a different hue of belief, based on all the spiritual paths I can study. I would like to continue more on this but please, a little at a time so there are no misconceptions.
333
flatwater
07-24-2009, 06:41 PM
That is true because the fallen angle can only do what God allows. Man is inherently evil. Now the question would be for me is , as with a bad gene one can find certain RX that can help but unless you get rid of the bad gene you will still have the problem associated with it and sometimes the RX has side affects as bad as the problem. As with evil , is the medication going to cure the problem or simply see us through one out break after another. The sure cure has a terrible side affect that is quite fatal sometimes and both are subscribed to as a cure. Now it has been my practice to recognize the evil within and deal with it, but not alone
flatwater
07-24-2009, 06:50 PM
Luck as in good luck and bad luck. Is there really such a thing as luck or even a little luck and if there is what (off the top of your head ) would be the percentage. ? Now with that said what is the opposit of luck ? Is no luck considered bad luck ? Do we make our own luck or is it sometimes handed to us on a silver platter but then that wouldn't be called luck would it ?
Peace,
Sorry for the delay but, I life gets hectic sometimes.
Luck as in good luck and bad luck. Is there really such a thing as luck or even a little luck and if there is what (off the top of your head ) would be the percentage. ? Now with that said what is the opposite of luck ? Is no luck considered bad luck ? Do we make our own luck or is it sometimes handed to us on a silver platter but then that wouldn't be called luck would it ?
Ifs are what philosophy is all about, or more accurately the questioning itself. Luck can be one definition, karma and dharma another, grace yet still another, chance, and so on depending on ones cultural back round. My grandfather used to say ..."he would rather be a fortunate man then a man with a fortune"... Another has said "chance favors the prepared mind". and again..."you reap what you sow".
What I believe is irrelevant but since you asked, in respect, I will answer. I believe the balance of "All that Is" is natural and mandatory. So this is to say that if one creates "Bad" or "negative energy" in their thoughts and or actions, then they will reap what they have sown. Inserting the word luck will apply as well but as with language, it always seems to fall a little short of the mark. So back to the edict or paradigm of " Doing unto others as you would have done unto you", Probably why this mandate IS at the top of all spiritual paths. Do great and good things to your neighbors, and no surprise you will have good neighbors and friends, harbor ill will, contempt and covet of your neighbors, and well I think it is plain and simple. Philosophically speaking the well needs to run deep and clean.
333
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.