New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'BHM/FFA' started by Ninja Glutton, Apr 24, 2010.
I looove me some Nietzsche. His stuff on religion is awesome. Love the quote you posted.
I do really love philosphy, but I haven't studied in depth enough to get to know certain philosphers. But I love all of the quotes posted here. I really need to take up a philosophy course in the next few years.
I'm afraid I'm not fond of Nietzche on general principle. He's an interesting read, but I prefer Aristotle and Socrates. (The allegory of the cave in particular.)
How can determinism not exist?
Every moment is tied completely to the moment immediately before it through a causal relationship.
I don't find it tyrannical, I find it freeing that everything that is going to be... is
I guess I see time as less of something linear and more as a multi-faceted crystal that is happening all at once but, through our limited human perception, we're seeing it one moment at a time.
I wasn't implying that our physiological factors for behavior are bondage but, rather, in the gene-centered evolutionary sense, a survival instinct.
How can you prefer Socrates' readings? He never wrote anything down.
Aristotle is definitely good brain food, though.
Did you mean you preferred Plato? The cave allegory was Plato.
Exactly !Every choice we make is in our "free will" but we are, or were, going to make those choices anyway based on everything that goes on with us and those around us. I sometimes don't see where or why some people don't understand that it just "is."
"Music without which life would be a mistake"
I may be paraphrasing or mistranslating, but that's my favorite Nietzsche quote.
Okay, second runner up "God is dead and we have killed him"
Can't quite remember how it goes
"To be immortal isn't difficult to achieve, all you have to do is remember not to die"
That got stuck in my head for ages after reading it.
That an organism is not an agent of his or her own change is highly depressing to me. Determinism in its various flavors has been used and far to often misused over the centuries by princes, popes and media moguls as bread and circuses to keep the masses placated. It's like a shiny silvery poetic promise for tomorrow, but the end result is passivity. Fuck that, I'll take my chances with chaos. At a certain point I moved past the Phil 101 survey course and decided to go with my agnostic gut on this one. No need to convert me, thanks, I'm good.
Whoa, and I thought we were being civil here
I didn't realize having an opinion that differs from yours meant I was trapped in a gen ed philosophy course. That is quite arrogant, presumptuous, and close-minded.
Just because it depresses you doesn't make it false.
The end result doesn't have to be passivity, it can be peaceful. There's a certain comfort in knowing that things will run their course. It has nothing to do with gods and predestination or instruments of control. It's not about sitting back and being a passenger of your own life. There are still visceral experiences. There is still a life to lead. There is still the entire spectrum of human sensory and emotional experience. I'm just taking the broad world view as opposed to relating everything to my own personal experience.
I wasn't trying to convert anyone, and this was simply a thread for philosophical meanderings of all shapes and forms. You're getting quite defensive in what should be a friendly context.
This is a discussion forum so if you aren't up for discussion you probably shouldn't bother posting.
Also, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Compatibilism asserts that both free will and determinism are equally valid.
I agree that every decision is a factor of physiological influences but I think saying this, while absolutely correct, can also be misleading to say I agree with it. While I love philosophy because it helps to explore the questions of our existence (which in philosophy tell much more so than the answers), I look to one of my favorite natural sciences for answers in respect to this particular question asked by philosophy, physics.
Consider the thought experiment of Schroedinger's cat. This experiment, for those not familiar, is a popular thought experiment that seeks to explain the nature of quantum superpositions (or very basically all the possible states any object can potentially have). It uses an absurd notion to help in visualizing the problems associated with the Copenhagen interpretation which in its basic form asserts that at the exact moment of quantum measurement that this observed quantum superposition collapses and forms the definite state that is observed. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment allows for this thinking at a quantum level to be applied to something that is much larger which also happens to be an organism and he chose a cat. Its a very interesting idea so I would suggest to any that is not familiar with it go forth and google as I think you will find it very intriguing. Anyways, ultimately the experiment puts the cat in a quantum superposition where it is both alive and dead at the same time. This being because his life and death hangs in the balance by a single subatomic particle.
Now I realize that this experiment that critiques the Copenhagen interpretation works in favor towards deterministic views, but the level in which it criticizes that aspect of quantum mechanics also parallels to our universe with the idea that we are in a "sealed box" and that we are not acting as observers in this sealed box universe. However, I maintain that the very questions that we as humans ask in the philosophy of existence acts as a quantum measurement allowing for all possible states as us as an object to exist at once (and making us observers in this experiment we call the universe). So in essence our ability to recognize our own existence is what allows us to exist in a perpetual chain of quantum superpositions which lends towards the possibility of free will. Without the human ability to be self-aware and question our own existence I believe we would be completely governed by casual laws that result in only one possible state (and thus determinism), but since we do have self-awareness of our existence we have at the very least an unpredictable existence which can start new casual chains at any given point. At a quantum superposition potentially any state is possible for a given object and while not the glorified idea of free will we are use to I think it is what free will really is, which is that random statistically probability that ultimately collapses into its final definite state.
...or maybe i'm just really high on caffeine and sugar right now...idk...lol
But is self-awareness just a mechanism, like dreaming, that is there to protect us from our own body's operations?
Is there a reason that we dream? Is it just because of the REM that our brain paints visions for us?
I'm sorry if I'm being spacey, but I often ponder the nature of consciousness itself. Perhaps our perception is more like a prison than a 1:1 experience of life because it confines us to one set of definitions. We're not even seeing/hearing/smelling/touching the world at a 1:1 because there is always going to be a delay, however miniscule. Our perception is still only one slice of the massive, infinite pie of perspectives.
Honestly, though, that was a really intelligent and well-defended argument. Kudos to you, sir.
Thank you for saying so, maybe too much caffeine and not enough sleep can amount to something coherent after all.
I can tell you like philosophy because you have posed great questions here, and ones that I have spent considerable time pondering myself. I have followed some of the more recent studies that interpret dreaming being much like the "garbage-collecting" process of computer programs in that it cleans up the memory to make room for more memories or even create a more logical relational structure. I got to thinking about it and thought it could be possible that the brain stores things like a computer database using a relational structure except in an abstract way that needs to be refined from time to time. For instance we store a correlation of the word "Bandana" with "Banana" because they have similar phonetic properties but has to make a exclusion whenever retrieving information that pertains to only one or the other. So maybe the brain at night cleans up the relations that do not allow for the efficient retrieval of information and places them in better kinds of categories like putting Banana with Yellow and Fruit, and then Bandana with Hats and Out of Style.
Of course as Nietzsche would say:
"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
when it comes to free will I get a little passionate - I regret you took me the wrong way... I'll remember to show less emotion next time.
Could you be anymore condescending?
I agree with that Nietzsche quote because, at any given time, common and generally-accepted ideas are based on a power structure rather than truth.
That brings up the whole "what is truth?" argument, though. To me, there is no absolute truth, but, rather, a giant tower card catalogue of individual stories, individual truths. It's just like when you read a story and it affects you in some profound way, but it's still just a story. As long as you accept it as truth, it is truth.
How did I take you the wrong way?
You were implying that at some point you moved beyond elementary philosophy and that whoever didn't agree with you was still stuck there.
You expressly stated the evils that determinism has been associated with and, while I don't disagree with you, that doesn't mean that all deterministic modes of thinking are evil or ulterior in motive. That's a very limited stance to take.
I didn't say you shouldn't be passionate or fiery with your opinions and arguments, but you could do it in a more civil way. I tend to treat others as intellectual equals instead of talking to them like they are children.
I'm liking the discourse in this thread and I'd hate to have it ruined by unnecessary rudeness.
okay... so my mea culpa even got slapped... Kinda makes me sad. Like actually sad I swear I'm not being sarcastic or condescending here, or whatever else seems to sit between the lines of unintended meaning. So to be clear, if I IMPLIED something insulting to you, I'm sorry. I can't be any clearer than that.
Not sure what else I can say, I guess I'll go back to repping pics of hot guys and reading steamy stories because I'd much rather feel horny than feel sad. Its much safer.
:::backs slowly away:::
Separate names with a comma.