The Philosophy Thread

[Louanne Learning]

Science may ask the “how?” but philosophy asks the “why?” and the “should?”

And isn’t that what writing does?

Anyway, back to philosophy:

Why are we here?

Should we be good?

And so on…

It’s my personal opinion that we are all philosophers. We wonder and we ask questions, even the unanswerable ones, and come up with our own take on this existence.

I’ll start with my own personal philosophy:

Be good at what you do, and make sure your word is good.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

"...it is said that someone at a party once asked the famous philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle 'Why are you here?' and the reply took three years." (The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett)

I am here because I got the invitation from Big Soft Moose.

Seriously, though: the question "why are we here?" is so open-ended, it's very difficult to answer. Where is 'here'? Our city, our country, our planet, 'our' solar system? :-\

I can offer three answers:

1. Being a humanist, I'd say we are here (i.e. on this planet) to help each other, to pick each other up when we're down, and to never do harm.

2. Being a scientifically-minded individual, I'd say we are here to inquire into the nature of the universe without having 'the divine' to fall back on. "Because a god said so" is not an acceptable answer.

3. Despite my scientific bent and rejection of the divine as an explanation for nature, being a spiritually-minded person, I marvel at the flight of birds, and the refracted light on rainbows, and the simple goodness that exists in everyone, if they open their hearts to it.
==========
As for the second question -- "should we be good?" -- again, this is very open-ended and imprecise. How do you define 'good'?

If we define 'good' as the opposite of 'evil' (in the classical sense), then being evil is no problem. It simply requires surrendering to all the baser instincts: sloth, lust, greed and so on. (The classical seven deadly sins).

Being good, on the other hand, requires self-control and perhaps that's why so many people have a problem with it.

For instance, they say: I'll go on a diet tomorrow. (Gluttony). Or: Ahhh, I'll do the work tomorrow. (Sloth). My neighbour sucks because he has a battery-powered spinning Santa on his roof and I don't. (Envy). The 'seven deadly sins' are why New Year's Resolutions exist.

Imagine if, instead, we all said: We don't need fancy gizmos to feel good. We are lucky to live in an prosperous age of plenty, in a place relatively free of disease, war, and want. We are blessed to have good friends and families who care about us. It is enough.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I'd say we are here (i.e. on this planet) to help each other, to pick each other up when we're down, and to never do harm.

This is tied in with purpose. we all need a "why" to live

I'd say we are here to inquire into the nature of the universe

It's amazing to me that we evolved these great powers of inquiry.

I marvel at the flight of birds, and the refracted light on rainbows, and the simple goodness that exists in everyone, if they open their hearts to it.

You'd make a good pantheist.

How do you define 'good'?

I know, right?

'good' as the opposite of 'evil' (in the classical sense), then being evil is no problem. It simply requires surrendering to all the baser instincts: sloth, lust, greed and so on. (The classical seven deadly sins).

Are our baser instincts based on "evil" or on "surviving" - however we define it?

eing good, on the other hand, requires self-control

This assumes everyone is predisposed to the bad.

 

[thirdwind]

Heh, I was a philosophy major but haven't really read any philosophy texts in probably a decade. Since you mentioned science, I'll note that one of my good friends in college was a physics major, so we used to have some great conversations about the philosophy of science. I remember finding quantum mechanics particularly interesting because of the implication it had for the real world. Sadly, I've forgotten most of what my friend taught me about quantum mechanics.

But yes, I also think we're all philosophers, even if we can't always fully articulate what we're thinking and feeling about a particular topic.

 

[Louanne Learning]

But yes, I also think we're all philosophers,

Yes, I agree.

I read an interesting article recently on confusion.

Is confusion the start or the end of philosophical enquiry?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

quantum mechanics

Do they repair quantums?

Is confusion the start or the end of philosophical enquiry?

That depends on how open-minded you are. Closed-minded individuals would be more likely to treat confusion as the end of an enquiry, e.g. "I don't understand this question, ergo it's a stupid question, ergo let's talk about something else."

Open-minded individuals would be the opposite. "I don't understand the answer, ergo is there -- maybe -- a way to reword the answer that would make more sense to me individually, even if it already makes sense to someone else?"

 

[Louanne Learning]

Closed-minded individuals would be more likely to treat confusion as the end of an enquiry, e.g. "I don't understand this question, ergo it's a stupid question, ergo let's talk about something else."

I was thinking more along the lines of trying to answer the unanswerable questions - not that there is confusion in the questions themselves.

Suppose a budding philosopher looks around and sees people acting this way or that way. They start to wonder about human motivation. They ask, "Are we born good or bad?" It's a fairly simple question and easily understood.

In this case, confusion can lead to wonder and enquiry.

Whether or not confusion results depends on how satisfied you are with the answer you come up with.

 

[Mr Mononoke]

I have been disciplined this year in focusing on editing the stories I have made, but over the last few weeks I had to write a new story and in it, one of my characters says this:

"... only morons fail to realise that it is only when you are broken that you can pick up the shattered fragments of you, to build the person you want to be."

This came to me in my sleep as this noisy character would not stop talking and was lambasting me for the defeatist attitude I was having. If I remember correctly, Confucius said something on the lines of: A great man is not one who does not fall, but picks themselves up every time they fall.

It is hard to disagree with the great sages of the past. And with this story, the protagonist changed their attitude.

 

[Louanne Learning]

"... only morons fail to realise that it is only when you are broken that you can pick up the shattered fragments of you, to build the person you want to be."

I wonder, if I may, that it is not morons that suffer this illusion, but people who do not believe in themselves.

 

[Mr Mononoke]

I wonder, if I may, that it is not morons that suffer this illusion, but people who do not believe in themselves.

I think so too Louanne, but this character is rather brash and views themselves on a much higher plane than anyone else.

I don't always agree with what my characters point of view but I write what they tell me, and this character is quite naughty.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Is all knowledge, by definition, true?

 

[DLC]

I give up, is it?

 

[Louanne Learning]

I give up, is it?

Well, I guess the first thing to note is that there is objective knowledge, and there is subjective knowledge.
Also, there is objective truth, and there is subjective truth.

An example of objective knowledge is that I am here. Any person in the world can walk into my office right now and see that I am here.
So, objectively, that is true.

An example of subjective knowledge is that my mother loves me. This is my subjective truth. It is true to me, ergo, it is true.

So, I suppose the question becomes - are beliefs examples of true knowledge?

I tend toward the position that if they are true for the holder of the belief, they fit the definition of subjective knowledge.

It comes down to this - is subjective truth still true?

 

[Raven]

Well, I guess the first thing to note is that there is objective knowledge, and there is subjective knowledge.
Also, there is objective truth, and there is subjective truth.

An example of objective knowledge is that I am here. Any person in the world can walk into my office right now and see that I am here.
So, objectively, that is true.

An example of subjective knowledge is that my mother loves me. This is my subjective truth. It is true to me, ergo, it is true.

So, I suppose the question becomes - are beliefs examples of true knowledge?

I tend toward the position that if they are true for the holder of the belief, they fit the definition of subjective knowledge.

It comes down to this - is subjective truth still true?

Sorry, I know I'm not part of this discussion, but this statement about objective truth made me think and I just want to try a thought experiment.

Let's say we create a simulated character in a computer system. They have computational power to construct not only a concept of self but to construct an observable world with other characters that appear sentient themselves. The world and other characters are emergent from the computation of the original character, the character is not in a simulated world but creates it in real time.

This character can say: "An example of objective knowledge is that I am here. Any person in the world can walk into my office right now and see that I am here.

So, objectively, that is true."

Not only is the 'I am' in this statement a construct, but the 'Any person' and the world itself is a construct of allocated computational power.

Is this character's knowledge about existing truely objective?

Maybe it is a contingent reality, not truely independent objectivity.

Then one can ask if our own knowledge is contingent within the framework of our own experience.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Sorry, I know I'm not part of this discussion,

Of course you are! Our discussions are open to all members.

Let's say we create a simulated character in a computer system. They have computational power to construct not only a concept of self but to construct an observable world with other characters that appear sentient themselves. The world and other characters are emergent from the computation of the original character, the character is not in a simulated world but creates it in real time.

This character can say: "An example of objective knowledge is that I am here. Any person in the world can walk into my office right now and see that I am here.

So, objectively, that is true."

Not only is the 'I am' in this statement a construct, but the 'Any person' and the world itself is a construct of allocated computational power.

Is this character's knowledge about existing truely objective?

Maybe it is a contingent reality, not truely independent objectivity.

Then one can ask if our own knowledge is contingent within the framework of our own experience.

I love this! It seems to be calling into question the existence of any objectivity.

It reminds me of solipsism - that the only thing we can be sure exists is what is in our minds. From the Wiki page:

Solipsism - is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

But how did my mind create the Sun in the sky, and the full moon at night?

 

[Naja Noir]

An example of objective knowledge is that I am here. Any person in the world can walk into my office right now and see that I am here.
So, objectively, that is true.

I'm not a philosopher. Took a class, and read a few books, one of which bored me more than anything else I've ever read.

I did wonder something though. What if a blind person walks into the office, you're quiet and wearing no strong perfume, etc.... so, they have no sense that you are there. Yet you are. What truth is that then an example of?

 

[Louanne Learning]

What if a blind person walks into the office, you're quiet and wearing no strong perfume, etc.... so, they have no sense that you are there. Yet you are. What truth is that then an example of?

Good question. Does reality exist if it is not sensed?

(Side note - senses are amazing. We have the capability to take in information from the environment - be aware of what is not us - and then process this information to formulate a response. Incredible. It almost seems like magic.)

I would say yes, that reality exists separate from it being sensed. This is because the environment can act on us. A rock does not have any senses, but if it falls off of a cliff, gravity will pull it down. And it may land on top of another rock, cracking them both.

So as far as reality is concerned, we don't just perceive it, but feel its effects.

 

[DLC]

I used to chat with other nerds on the old msn thing (1999 thereabouts) and they got me reading a guy named Willard Van Orman Quine, who had the most philosophy name ever. Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it was called. Kinda interesting how they boil everything down to the meaning contained within each and every word, including the placement of simple thing's like 'it' or 'and'. Started to make my brain hurt, to be honest.
Anyway, the answer is It Depends. I believe they're still arguing about it now. I came across something recently by Roger Penrose, a man I greatly admire. He explained how they confuse things to the point that people think with quantum entanglement that things can exist in all possible states if they have never been witnessed by a sentient thing, which is absurd. He used the example of a distant planet, what's the weather like? Is it all weathers until we send something to look, causing it to make up its mind? The basic point being how badly the cat in the box thing is misunderstood, it's kinda deep.

 

[Louanne Learning]

It Depends.

This seems like a cop-out to me. At some point, we have to make up our mind.

things can exist in all possible states if they have never been witnessed by a sentient thing

So, we define things?

 

[DLC]

I think it's Kant you want to start with. I'm pretty much with a guy called Daniel Dennett, I can't explain it well enough really. There's an ongoing debate between analytical truths and synthetic truths, that's all I meant.