Fear or Laziness

Metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical or mystical topics.
The forum for talks about the intangible universe, the human mind, and the soul.

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Sabina » Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:59 pm

People sometimes have different views on the same thing. More often than not, actually.
Other times, people actually have the same views, they only express their views in different manners or using different logics, and therefore think that they disagree, when they actually mean the same thing.
No, that is not what happened here. I am just saying that any time people discuss something, it can develop in so many different ways.
And it's all ok. Even completely opposite views on any given topic don't have to have any "dire consequences".
Some thoughts are interesting to entertain as a sort of mental exercise. It doesn't necessarily have to lead to a credo or a way of life. An alternate way of looking at something can possibly spark a new thought, and even if that alternate way doesn't stand its ground, the new thought it sparks may well do so.
That is how new philosophies are born, often over outrageous or unimaginable concepts. That is one of the reasons I love discussions. You never know where they may lead. Even a silly idea can lead to something grand, if it is a silliness which is food for thought, or is taken as food for thought.

Of course any made claim can also simply be uninspiring, even if it is eloquently expressed.

As for me, I am in an inspiring mood today. That doesn't merely mean that I am inspired. It also means that I will take whatever happens as creative inspiration. Because I choose to.
"Whether You believe you can, or you can't, you are right."
User avatar
Sabina
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:11 am
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: Confession by Tolstoy + Chess novel by Zweig
Favorite movie: Matrix + Baraka
Things I like: the arts, free thinkers, creativity, passion, intelligence, honesty
State of Mind or Tendency: Artistic
Kudos: 61

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:36 pm

I also got the impression that the "debate" wasn't so much about debating any longer but more to the point of just simply stating a nicely thought out philosophical idea. Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy and the mind exercises they provide but for the most part they cannot be debated to an end as they are only hypothetical or theoretical in nature.

To strip down human emotion, as being superficial and mundane in anyway, is the Vulcan approach to things and for most it is a somewhat bland life and would be similar to that in Equilibrium...

I think emotion is part of being human and without it we become something else... Yes, yes... you aren't saying that we should be completely without emotion but that emotion shouldn't control or be the major factor in our decision making process... but then I would ask you... why do you do anything... what is your motivation?
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:16 pm

I'm sorry again Dermot but your entire post was a lie and I do not accept it's sentiments and I call you to re-evaluate.

You have been unreasonable and counter-discursive in this topic and any mote of a revision of your posts will show anyone that. And I am more than experienced with mature disagreement so I do not accept any form of grandiose delusions on my part; do not for a second believe that I am not careful to mind my own.

Nevertheless, far be it from me to allow online dialectic to dissolve entirely, and I am more than willing to reunite ways and should you wish to respond in riposte to the actual discussion at hand then I will gladly move on with you in kind. I am much in agreement with Sabina that disagreement should lead to counter-point and not verbal hostility.

Ryan wrote:I also got the impression that the "debate" wasn't so much about debating any longer but more to the point of just simply stating a nicely thought out philosophical idea. Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy and the mind exercises they provide but for the most part they cannot be debated to an end as they are only hypothetical or theoretical in nature.


Simple Socratic method would seek to make a debate out of any theory. The end, so to speak, then becomes the validation or invalidation of the line of reason.

Ryan wrote:To strip down human emotion, as being superficial and mundane in anyway, is the Vulcan approach to things and for most it is a somewhat bland life and would be similar to that in Equilibrium...

I think emotion is part of being human and without it we become something else... Yes, yes... you aren't saying that we should be completely without emotion but that emotion shouldn't control or be the major factor in our decision making process... but then I would ask you... why do you do anything... what is your motivation?


I think this is a very good point and a complex one to combat so I hope you don't mind if I challenge it on a few fronts at once:

Firstly I should clarify some semantics, in lieu of my dichotomy I use the terms "feelings" and "emotions" separately. Feelings, of which I think you're referring mostly to, are the naturalistic side of the dichotomy and emotions are the supernaturalistic counterpart.

I assume you're referring to feelings because that is more or less the traditional idea and the idea of indefinite emotions is a fairly strange thing to try and think about and in mainstream thought only occurs in rare exceptions. For instance, consider the way we see depressive boredom as merely that, but when it appears to indescribably transcend that we find ourselves lusting for a whole new word for what is seemingly at first the same thing, thus we have "ennui".
Emotions as I would describe then become something which consistently escape definition and often even seem to escape physical experience. You don't "feel" ennui, do you? Yet it's most definitely an emotion. You can find it so intrinsically compelling that it encompasses and defines your being and yet ennui cannot be described in so simple terms as the chemistry of unipolar depression because it is the cognitive effecting the chemical, not the other way around.
And this leads to my point; yes that which is physical is extremely compelling, but it is not the whole of our impulses, nor should it be. Were you to be made physically numb to feeling, you would not become a simple mindless automaton a la Equilibrium. In fact you would have more remaining capacity to reflect on that which is objectively meaningful, your emotions.

Secondly, I would challenge why you deem feelings so important and Mackey's point would pose the question that maybe you feel compelled by your feelings simply because they're physically compelling. But were that to be true, it would of course not only be circular but also neither "meaning" nor "purpose" is mentioned within it.

Finally, I'm going to focus on your last phrase:
Ryan wrote:... but then I would ask you... why do you do anything... what is your motivation?

This first implies that feeling fulfilment is the only reason for doing anything. This may well be plausible but it has some connotations that come with it, the most important two of which is it denies altruism and it also denies any other facet of existential fulfilment. This is very in line with naturalism and I wonder now maybe if you are in fact a naturalist? Though you do not strike me at first as one maybe this is so? Of course there's nothing wrong with that and I may very well be in the same boat were I not to employ Pascal's Wager the way I do.

In direct response to your question though, my motivation is simply to pursue objective meaning because objective meaning is by definition the only thing worth pursuing.
That being said though I have been called up on a bias before for not seeing the value in subjective meaning, and I guess that is true but I think I'm right in saying the paradox of nihilism applies there, that is to say that subjective meaning is unreasonably meaningful...I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that. Let me know if my damn gist proves impossible to catch. =]
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Sabina » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:31 pm

Hello ThePermster,

I was actually rather curious to see your answer to Ryan's question about your motivation, however, while you did address the question, you didn't answer it. Or, at least, I don't see the answer.
So, could you explain precisely what the motivation is behind everything you do?

Thanks,
Sabina
"Whether You believe you can, or you can't, you are right."
User avatar
Sabina
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:11 am
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: Confession by Tolstoy + Chess novel by Zweig
Favorite movie: Matrix + Baraka
Things I like: the arts, free thinkers, creativity, passion, intelligence, honesty
State of Mind or Tendency: Artistic
Kudos: 61

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby dermot » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:14 pm

"ThePermster" I'm sorry again Dermot but your entire post was a lie and I do not accept it's sentiments and I call you to re-evaluate.


The above statement brings for me at least, any further paticipation with you to an abrupt end.
It reads as a very strange combination of words.
d.
....the heart only whispers, be still and listen....
User avatar
dermot
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: ireland
Personality: Introvert
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 52

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:32 pm

Sabina wrote:Hello ThePermster,

I was actually rather curious to see your answer to Ryan's question about your motivation, however, while you did address the question, you didn't answer it. Or, at least, I don't see the answer.
So, could you explain precisely what the motivation is behind everything you do?

Thanks,
Sabina


To achieve the pursuit of objective meaning, was my answer.
I phrase it as a pursuit and not a simple acquisition in lieu of my use of Pascal's Wager to justify the attempt for objective meaning in the first place.
As for what objective meaning actually is; who knows? Whatever is meant when one uses the word in phrases like "the meaning of life". Who even knows if there is such a thing as objective meaning and frankly the traditions of the idea are as obfuscated as free-will or God or whatever. But if there isn't then meaning is all relative anyway so it really makes no difference to my existential self.
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Sabina » Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:52 pm

As I not only can, but indeed do read, I am aware of what your answer was. :)
You closed your original statement with "Let me know if my damn gist proves impossible to catch."
So, I asked you to clarify, but you have rather repeated the answer than clarified it. You have expanded on the concept a bit rather than to explain it.

You mentioned the Socratic method, which is in general an excellent approach, however I think you may have misunderstood the whole idea behind it.
"Whether You believe you can, or you can't, you are right."
User avatar
Sabina
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:11 am
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: Confession by Tolstoy + Chess novel by Zweig
Favorite movie: Matrix + Baraka
Things I like: the arts, free thinkers, creativity, passion, intelligence, honesty
State of Mind or Tendency: Artistic
Kudos: 61

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:25 pm

Ok... I must confess... you are making no sense to me at all...

You say the reason why you do anything is:
ThePermster wrote:To achieve the pursuit of objective meaning, was my answer.


And as to what exactly that means:
ThePermster wrote:As for what objective meaning actually is; who knows?


80|

So much for the "introspective practice as part of the consideration process to draw proper conclusions"... or is it just me that is missing the logics behind having no idea why you do the things you do...?
That would be like me saying,
"I do the things I do for the pursuit of Glibberdy Glocklick Stockfurt."...
"For what?!?"...
"I don't know..."

In response to your earlier post... if you mean "naturalist" in the sense that everything is predetermined... no I am not. If everything was predetermined I do not think we would have been able to make such a mess of the planet on which we live.

My question as to why you do the things you do is to determine what you hope to achieve... if there is a goal to you doing the things you do, I would need to know why you have a goal, and what does it mean to you to achieve this goal. If "achieving objective reasoning" is your goal what purpose does it serve to achieve it? What happens once you have achieved it? And what happens if you don't? How does it affect you, your life, and those around you... and why are those affects important anyway?
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:27 pm

Sabina wrote:As I not only can, but indeed do read, I am aware of what your answer was. :)
You closed your original statement with "Let me know if my damn gist proves impossible to catch."
So, I asked you to clarify, but you have rather repeated the answer than clarified it. You have expanded on the concept a bit rather than to explain it.


I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure what you want clarifying here? Is it perhaps the meaning of the terms used? That's what I tried to expand upon last time.

Sabina wrote:You mentioned the Socratic method, which is in general an excellent approach, however I think you may have misunderstood the whole idea behind it.


Woopsie, I meant dialectic, another doy moment on my part. x]

Ryan wrote:Ok... I must confess... you are making no sense to me at all...

You say the reason why you do anything is:
ThePermster wrote:To achieve the pursuit of objective meaning, was my answer.


And as to what exactly that means:
ThePermster wrote:As for what objective meaning actually is; who knows?


80|

So much for the "introspective practice as part of the consideration process to draw proper conclusions"... or is it just me that is missing the logics behind having no idea why you do the things you do...?
That would be like me saying,
"I do the things I do for the pursuit of Glibberdy Glocklick Stockfurt."...
"For what?!?"...
"I don't know..."


I see what you're saying, this is the difficulty with working with indefinite concepts, makes me wish my epistemological knowledge was better.

Anyway, here the term meaning is being used to describe simply "the worth of life". This of course warrants that the word "meaning" then becomes axiomatically the only thing important of life. The problem comes in when you try to consider what nature it should adopt:
Subjective meaning makes a lot of sense as worth then becomes determined purely by the observer, though this of course then makes the meaning inherently arbitrary, which is fine but traditionally undesirable because a person and their life cannot intrinsically be worthwhile, they must be first observed and deemed worthwhile or otherwise.
Objective meaning on the other hand is traditionally desirable because worth of life then becomes a property of the person and not the beholder but this then means that a delineating scale of worth of life would need to be an intrinsic property of reality itself. Religion often explains this simply by having an observer who is infallible and thus objective, i.e. God. Though I do not propose this nor is it necessary for the idea of objective meaning, though without an observer it becomes difficult to define exactly how else it might be determined.
This however doesn't reduce the idea to philosophical quantum theory though, consider first how equally difficult it is to define subjective meaning, can you define the ability in human observers to identify meaning? Or understand how it often appears paradoxically with people often disagreeing on those who have and have not lead meaningful lives?

The obvious solution is existential nihilism; simply that there is no such thing as meaning and this is a viable possibility but again I justify the rejection of this idea via a form of Pascal's Wager. That isn't to say that existential nihilism is invalidated, only set aside.
Also bringing in the phenomenological world here gives some interesting results, I've heard a good case for a objective/subjective compatibilism before, I'll see if I can drag up the transcript for it actually, was quite compelling.

Ryan wrote:In response to your earlier post... if you mean "naturalist" in the sense that everything is predetermined... no I am not. If everything was predetermined I do not think we would have been able to make such a mess of the planet on which we live.


Are you sure? If you were in agreement with the naturalists then surely it'd make a lot of sense for arrogant hairless monkeys to have made a shambles of everything they've ever done.
It's my understanding that monkeys are pretty good at breaking things.

Ryan wrote:My question as to why you do the things you do is to determine what you hope to achieve... if there is a goal to you doing the things you do, I would need to know why you have a goal, and what does it mean to you to achieve this goal. If "achieving objective reasoning" is your goal what purpose does it serve to achieve it? What happens once you have achieved it? And what happens if you don't? How does it affect you, your life, and those around you... and why are those affects important anyway?


I think this is quite simply addressed by my brief definition of meaning above; we all have lives and it's in our best interests to lead them with worth. If we don't then why live them?
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:54 pm

ThePermster wrote:Are you sure? If you were in agreement with the naturalists then surely it'd make a lot of sense for arrogant hairless monkeys to have made a shambles of everything they've ever done.
It's my understanding that monkeys are pretty good at breaking things.
Yes, I am sure... and it is my understanding every creature is pretty good at breaking things... "A bull in a China Shop", Flocks of birds are very dangerous and destructive to airplanes, deer and horses have destroyed numerous cars, mice and rats are not very respectful of wiring in houses and cars, termites and ants are very destructive to vegetation and structures... the list goes on... and any expanding population of any creature is destructive if not kept in check... that's why we have hunting seasons... to control the populations of other species from causing us problems.

ThePermster wrote:I think this is quite simply addressed by my brief definition of meaning above; we all have lives and it's in our best interests to lead them with worth. If we don't then why live them?
Sorry... I couldn't find anywhere in your explanation as to how the pursuit of objective reasoning is important for you and how it affects your life and those around you. You continue to talk about "We" and "They" and other philosopher's thoughts and theories... If you would like to change the above sentence into a more personal one... like:
I have a life and it's in my best interest to lead it with worth. If I don't then why live it?
Seriously? That is pretty much just restating the question I asked...isn't it? I thought I was asking about the things that are in your "best interest". I mean as far as I understood the reason you do anything is in the pursuit of objective reasoning. To me that would be what you consider to be in your best interest... and I asked why is that so important to you. What changes in your life and those around you when you achieve objective reasoning...?

Look... The point of my questioning and being stubborn about following this through is because I guarantee that the final result for why you do anything is in direct relation with an emotion. Generally happiness... You do what you do for a better life...more meaningful... whatever. Yet, if you can tell the difference between a better life or a worse life it is because of feeling and emotion...not logics. Logically we don't require electricity, huge plasma screen TV's, iPods, computers, or any technological creation. Logically, all there is is life, on this planet or another it doesn't matter. Life is life, and everything else serves no real purpose except pleasure or to make things easier which provides comfort. Comfort in that we don't have to starve, freeze, or roast in the summer heat. This is emotional because there, in essence, is no physical discomfort. What tells us we are hot or cold? It is just electrical impulses sent to our brains which our brains interpret. We give these signals deeper meaning by concluding they are either pleasurable or not. We all know that people have different pain thresholds and therefore pain and pleasure are not objective... they are subjective in nature.

The reasons why you believe, or feel, that pursuing objective reasoning is important is again subjective, not objective. What I have been trying to let you figure out this entire time is that emotions and logics are intertwined. You cannot separate them and say this is not necessary... of course you could and it would be very interesting to see the result... but I can guarantee you that the affect will not be that which you expect.

You keep politely accusing me of being a "naturalist" in the sense of everything being predetermined. The answer, once again, is definitely not. But I do believe everything happens for a reason. I know we have freewill and can affect the outcome of things. However, that does not exclude the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For everything we know there is a positive, negative and neutral... even on the Planck scale of objective construction to action and reaction... You can not separate them... no matter how logical or illogical you may find them. For you to come to the conclusion that any emotion is superficial and mundane is purely subjective. Biologically speaking females of our species are much more constructed around and about emotion. It is the love and care of a mother that provides an infant with the better chances of survival and higher chances to exceed in social success. Scientifically speaking and proven. And to toss that fact out the window as being superficial in result is not logical at all. If anything only, once again, proves that your conclusion is subjective and not objective...
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

PreviousNext

Return to Spirited Debate

Who is online

Registered users: Yahoo [Bot]

cron
StumbleUpon Digg Delicious Reddit Yahoo Google Live Facebook Twitter MySpace