Philosophy thread - Page 3

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffSamardzijaIRISH

In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

There are different types of truths. There are some truths that are so specific that one can't help but use the "experts" as a base for truth without delving into extensive research and experimentation. However there are also truths that each person must discover for themselves which subjective, in these matters while "experts" may exist, their "knowledge" is highly incomplete and thus I feel it is a truth one can only find for himself.

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unseen

Wow, that actually is a good question. I'd go with incest, since although that person is your clone physically, they may think and act differently. But are we even sure of that?

The answer depends on whether your clone is simply a biological copy, in which case it would be incest, or whether that clone would also have my memories and my reactions to my memories, because that would most likely leave the clone with my personality at which point he and I would be the same, thus making it masturbation.

Brent · 05-03-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

Totally slap in the face to objectivist not to be even mentioned...All kidding aside Ayn Rand is my favorite philosopher to read

1) I do not like Objectivism.
2) I hated reading Ayn Rand.

bearsfan_51 · 05-03-2009, 03:14 PM

Ayn Rand is trash.

That said, objectivism is basically just a mis-mash of existentialism, empiricism, and rationalism. There's nothing new to it, other than she's a terrible writer.

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 03:53 PM

ouch guys, and I thought we were friends.

Vox Populi · 05-03-2009, 03:54 PM

I'll let you know next year when I'm studying it more ;)

Brodeur · 05-03-2009, 04:14 PM

I ******* despise all theories of Personal Identity, and to answer the question in hand, I've always enjoyed reading Marx's theories so I just went with him for the hell of it.

iowatreat54 · 05-03-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

I ******* despise all theories of Personal Identity, and to answer the question in hand, I've always enjoyed reading Marx's theories so I just went with him for the hell of it.

I agree. Marxism gets a bad rep from the general public because of asshole individuals taking it to extremes.

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

I agree. Marxism gets a bad rep from the general public because of asshole individuals taking it to extremes.

that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

iowatreat54 · 05-03-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

Well, I think for a basis of society it is good theory, but obviously as society progresses it will become less necessary/applicable.

But as a side note, in all honestly, a good amount of people are complete morons, and telling them how to run their life would prolly be better than them trying to do it themselves.

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

Well, I think for a basis of society it is good theory, but obviously as society progresses it will become less necessary/applicable.

But as a side note, in all honestly, a good amount of people are complete morons, and telling them how to run their life would prolly be better than them trying to do it themselves.

I just can't vibe with the idea that you can end up with a good result even if you run the morons lives completely. My belief is that the only way to better the lives of morons is to make them entirely responsible for themselves so that they have to learn and improve and start thinking for themselves, and those that fail to do those things I don't think are worth worrying about barring a close personal relationship. I think that the quote by Herbet Spencer that "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” sums things up perfectly. Since my greatest issue with morons isn't even that they lack brain power, but that they don't exercise the brain power they do have.

As for communism as a theory I guess it's sweet, I just don't think it can work with humans, we're simply not altruistic and without an altruistic nature there's no incentive to bust your ass and be all you can be. Now there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are a minuscule portion of the populace.

iowatreat54 · 05-03-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

I just can't vibe with the idea that you can end up with a good result even if you run the morons lives completely. My belief is that the only way to better the lives of morons is to make them entirely responsible for themselves so that they have to learn and improve and start thinking for themselves, and those that fail to do those things I don't think are worth worrying about barring a close personal relationship.

As for communism as a theory I guess it's sweet, I just don't think it can work with humans, we're simply not altruistic and without an altruistic nature there's no incentive to bust your ass and be all you can be. Now there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are a minuscule portion of the populace.

I can completely agree with that. I don't think a group should have control over everything you do or the choices you make.

I just like Marxism as a basic principle that the good of the group > the good of the individual. Mainly because one of my biggest pet peeves is individuals that cannot see anything beyond themselves at the moment.

The Unseen · 05-03-2009, 04:52 PM

Speaking of structuralism, I believe the linguistics department I will be apart of is Chomskyan in approach, so I'll be exposed to that in awhile.

Mr. Hero · 05-03-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

I can completely agree with that. I don't think a group should have control over everything you do or the choices you make.

I just like Marxism as a basic principle that the good of the group > the good of the individual. Mainly because one of my biggest pet peeves is individuals that cannot see anything beyond themselves at the moment.

I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

iowatreat54 · 05-03-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

Yes, I don't necessarily agree that the group is greater than the individual, but just that in some cases the good of the group is greater than the good of the individual. In my experience, the great majority of people make decisions that will usually result in short term benefit to themselves while sacrificing a long term benefit for society.

irishbucsfan · 05-03-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

Why? I find blanket statements like that to be repulsive.

Addict · 05-03-2009, 05:19 PM

Marxism is a bit iffy since it's kind of a hybrid between a philosophy and an economic model, with a massive political movement that spawned from it.

Manic Depressant · 05-03-2009, 05:29 PM

Has anybody read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins?

bearsfan_51 · 05-03-2009, 05:32 PM

The degree to which some of you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet claim to have absolute knowledge, is depressing.

Addict · 05-03-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The degree to which some of you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet claim to have absolute knowledge, is depressing.

I think you forgot to quote someone there. I have no idea who you're typing to.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH · 05-03-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

It's because people are not good judges of themselves(most of the time). They tend to overrate their abilities and perceive themselves as better than they actually are. I'm not saying this for everyone, because some can judge their own abilities within reason, but for the most part people overrate themselves because that's where they want to be.

bearsfan_51 · 05-03-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Addict

Marxism is a bit iffy since it's kind of a hybrid between a philosophy and an economic model, with a massive political movement that spawned from it.

Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

bearsfan_51 · 05-03-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Addict

I think you forgot to quote someone there. I have no idea who you're typing to.

I wouldn't be so rude as to publicly call out anyone. It's more of a general statement against some of the blanket statements which are dripping with unjustifiable arrogance.

It's philosophy people. It's never black and white.

Except for Ayn Rand. She's trash.

Addict · 05-03-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

well not good probably, I mean his ideas revolved around the working class going into a mass revolt. Most states that are now considered 'marxist' were actually founded on leninist principles, with a relatively small, zealous group of well-trained revolutionaries doing the dirty work.

Marx would not have been amused by the butchering of his ideas.

iowatreat54 · 05-03-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

Yea, I didn't want to risk getting into any political talks and ruin the thread, but like I said before, the general public associates Marxism with extreme cases of individuals and politics that stem from it.

If you look at Marxism just as a basic social theory, it is much different from what people associate with things such as communism.