Posted 28 January 2014 - 04:08 PM
Posted 28 January 2014 - 09:34 PM
Posted 28 January 2014 - 10:21 PM
Edited by forever freedom, 28 January 2014 - 10:26 PM.
Posted 29 January 2014 - 11:28 AM
Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:07 AM
just try to enjoy every day, go out with friends, do fun things, etc. it's the best we can do.
this may seem shallow but i'm a deep thinker myself and i reached the above conclusion in the end after many many years. it's the best way to live. don't care much about deeper things, if you think about it, there's nothing we can do to change reality, we are still incredibly primitive as a civilization/race. so might as well enjoy the little that we have.
developing the ability to enjoy life, as imperfect as it is, is one of the greatest challenges we face. it's a noble pursuit.
Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:21 AM
Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.
Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:04 PM
I came to the same conclusion too, people on this earth are so very annoying and material pursuits are so very pointless.
So I started gardening. By giving life and preserving it in other organisms it has given me purpose in life. And has brung beauty to my surroundings, and new smells. Even a worthwhile crop of food.
I also started going to church again after 15 years of being an Atheist, that has given me purpose in life too by having a place where I can socialize with other people, it doesn't matter what age they are I can always talk about the bible on weekends, among many other things.
I also, despite enormous pressure to throw it out, started collecting vintage computer hardware (again) and playing dos and windows 98 games. I have fun, it pisses other people off, but who cares people are full of shit 80% of the time anyway!
I also started watching tv shows and movies with another person, I won't say who, but it is important to mention it that it also gives me meaning and purpose.
I also started visiting other peoples houses, hanging out with them, talking with them.
Once I've mastered gardening and made a respectable garden I might start to work with wood aswell, woodworking is a great hobby!
I for one can't wait for the day when I can consider myself as great as the greatest inventors and builders of history. That is what I pursue immortality for.
Beware though, being depressed all of the time can only result in one thing, brain damage as a result of extensive drug use, I have to combat my own brain damage as a result of binge drinking and drug taking. Legal drugs too, another stupid idea that we have is having bottled ethanol and packaged nicotine/pollutants in every corner store around the world. Silly just silly!! Then again even perscription drugs can give you brain damage.
I for one am going to soon be trying St Johns Wort as a method of getting rid of mild depression, I'm never trying any of the 10x Anti-depressants that I tried in the past.
It really doesn't matter what you do in life, just keep on doing it! and find a group which can cater to your desires/needs. THAT is the hardest part about life, fitting in.
Good luck!
Edited by Layberinthius, 24 April 2014 - 12:29 PM.
Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:00 PM
Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.
Ho a human perspective! Although you say others which just mean others.
I guess I'm searching for a Way or general perspective not at odds with sceince. However I love ataxy and loathe order as brain-killing.
Religion is a Way, and some find success using it daily, many prcatice rituals.
To me this is another blocking technique like happiness.
I search for a comprehensive philosophy, integrated, consistent, encompassising the edge of science.
Meaning is indeed based as interaction: without interaction I doubt it exists, and because the world is unpredictable, and we insufficient to predict it - despite its being governed by laws absolute.
Philosophy may be the path to happiness.
I think.
I act.
Am I deluded.
Edited by addx, 25 April 2014 - 12:05 PM.
Posted 25 April 2014 - 01:21 PM
Posted 25 April 2014 - 01:31 PM
Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.
Edited by addx, 25 April 2014 - 01:43 PM.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 01:18 AM
Don't try to over think it! There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?". Life is to be lived. It is a SUBJECTIVE experience. The point of life is whatever you make it! You are the ruler of your own subjective reality!
I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED. You seem to have deep interest in fields such a philosophy and such. I find a tremendous amount of purpose and happiness in studying fields such as philosophy, psychology, theology, and science.
Two years ago I fell into deep depression mainly due to struggling with the main mysteries of life... Why are we here? How did we get here? What am I supposed to do now that I'm here? What happens after this?... The more I failed to stumble upon solid answers the more anxiety I developed.
However, I eventually realized that I was looking at it the wrong way. Searching for the answers to these unanswerable questions IS the point! And the best way, in my opinion, to uncovering and searching for these answers is by EXPERIENCING life!
Alan Watts has some incredible talks regarding the nature of life and happiness. I highly recommend checking some of his work out on YouTube.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:24 AM
Don't try to over think it!
There's no such thing as overthinking. "Overthought" is just an idea that was dreamed up by someone who felt too lazy to think.
There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?".
How do you know?
I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED.
Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:51 AM
Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.
Edited by addx, 05 May 2014 - 12:35 PM.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 06:13 PM
just try to enjoy every day, go out with friends, do fun things, etc. it's the best we can do.
this may seem shallow but i'm a deep thinker myself and i reached the above conclusion in the end after many many years. it's the best way to live. don't care much about deeper things, if you think about it, there's nothing we can do to change reality, we are still incredibly primitive as a civilization/race. so might as well enjoy the little that we have.
developing the ability to enjoy life, as imperfect as it is, is one of the greatest challenges we face. it's a noble pursuit.
The more we learn to integrate the fun of complexity into our frame work of every day life, the more enjoyment we can get out of it. Ignoring complexities only works some times. You cannot reverse your linear learning curve, you can only learn new things to help you deal with and expand away from the old learned habits.
Essentially the most crucial component of our enjoyment is the human nervous system and its "at ease-ment". Learn to keep the nervous system calm and free of a whole bunch of stressed out considerations imposed by the conscious mind, without totally rendering inert that same mind, and we have made progress.
Edited by TheFountain, 05 May 2014 - 06:18 PM.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:20 PM
Don't try to over think it!
There's no such thing as overthinking. "Overthought" is just an idea that was dreamed up by someone who felt too lazy to think.
There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?".
How do you know?
I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED.
Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.
I think you failed to realize the point of my post was first and foremost to support a site member. Innocent is showing signs of anxiety or depression as well as notioning at the possibility of suicide being an option. When overthinking becomes disruptive to daily life, which in this case it seems to have done, it is a problem. Overthinking can be a direct factor to anxiety and other mental issues. (I think you "overthought" my post a bit 
...)
How do I know that there is currently no answer to the question of "what is the point"? This is simply a subjective opinion based on what I know. There are a multitude of different religions, philosophies, and explanations at the moment. Everyone seems to be seeking the answer or has some sort of personal opinion regarding the topic. But at this moment in time, I am inclined to believe we do not have a concrete, objective answer. However, I would not be naive enough to say that the answer could not reveal itself in the future.
In regards to your final paragraph, I completely agree! Well, I agree with your SUBJECTIVE opinion. It is very similar to my own... "some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or 'power' you have". That is exactly what experiencing and enjoying encompass in my own subjective conclusion. Through experience, enjoyment, and appreciation the goal is "to be all you can be, to do all you can do" - to exceed and grow! However, I would never be ignorant enough to say that I have come up with an OBJECTIVE answer. How on Earth could you possibly claim to have come up with an objective answer to the purpose of life? Your conclusion is completely biased and opinionated; therefore, subjective. You have come up with a PERSONAL OPINION based on your very limited knowledge and experience (that is not a shot at you, it simply means that 20 years on this planet is a extremely short amount of time). While I do agree with your personal conclusion, I at the same time realize it is simply just our subjective answer to "what is the purpose of life".
Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:14 AM
I still owe you an answer on the other thread, it will take more time than this.
Haha, you owe me nothing. The posts on that other thread are long and heavy.
if you read that poll thread of mine you will see what you identify acquiring control or power defined even neurologically but also evolutionary and psychologically
You give biological evolution too much credit. The instincts evolution gave us, beyond the ones that aid in survival, have no meaning to them. The best thing biological evolution gave us, other than life itself, is the ability to think; now we're on our own.
My conviction is that the imperative I described comes not from the physical world, in which biological evolution occurs, but from the very nature of existence (indeed ontological and metaphysical premises preceded my conclusion, while no premises from the natural sciences did).
Since you're using Nietzsche, the "will to power" is only there because of the "will to slave" (with that power) and vice versa.
I wish you didn't turn that much of your attention to that one clause of mine. Yes, it can be understood in Nietzschean terms, but not in the Nietzschean view. Notice I've said "particularly:" Nietzsche doesn't hold a monopoly on this concept. However, the Will to Power is such a big thing in Nietzsche's philosophy that unlike most philosophers he spent a lot of his writing time elaborating on this concept. Perhaps most significantly, he talked about it as the main driving force in man, and while I don't think it is the main driving force in man, I do think that it's methodologically sound in the pragmatic sense to treat it as your own main driving force.
Since the inception of life, power (improvement of resistance) can seen as selfish (in the moment it is being acquired in) as it is in the primary interest of the individual and only a potential interest of the collective(depending on what will be done with the imporved resistance).
"Power," in this case, is not the best possible word to represent the concept, but there are few alternatives: choice, opportunity, possibility, ability.
Individual power is more often than not in agreement with collective/societal power, especially when you consider that the welfare of the particular is positively affected by the welfare of the whole. If you look at the progress of civilization, you will see that it's all a timeline of power growth. A society with high standards of living is one where its members are powerful, i.e. have more options to choose from.
The stigma comes from the idea that power is a zero-sum resource, and it would be if power was solely power by people over people, but there are different kinds of power, non-social power, which I've mentioned on the other thread: power over oneself, which is willpower, and power over things in the physical world, the means of which are called technology and technique.
It can be anything. A fork is a piece of technology. Making a fork or doing your bed requires technique. Motor skills, for example, involve a a kind of innately known technique. Choosing the best route from the shop back to your house can be thought of as requiring technique, but it also requires knowledge (skills and knowledge are two physiologically distinguished types of applicable recollections, gained and maintained by procedural memory and semantic memory respectively).
Slaving(sharing resistance -> reproduction of resistance (making a gene pool deposit of ones own genes) or using resistance to protect others which causes those others to learn it vicariously - protecting & teaching(depositing in the knowledge pool) is altruistic as it is in the interest of the collective.
Ability to slave is increased if the slave has more power so it makes power(improvement of resistance of an individual) an interest of the collective as well.
Since our observation of the "selfishness" of the "will to power" was an "illusion of the moment", when looking at the complete cycle of life it is not selfish.
"He that cannot obey cannot command," a quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power.
The employer has bargaining power over the employee because even a good employee can't be certain to find a good or better job if he loses his current job, but a good employee has bargaining power over the employer too because the employer can't always afford to lose a good employee, especially if that employee will work for the competitor and/or if the employee operates something that cannot be operated as easily by someone else (e.g., programmers hate reading others' code, some workers in real estate have to know the details of every deal). There are other sources of bargaining power in the employer-employee relationship, as labor unionists will tell you.
Life could not be incepted or persist without using power to slave for the collective(first notion of slaving is using resources to replicate rather than repair ones own damage) which ensures future.
Deliberate attempts to contribute to the welfare of the collective are not necessary for the welfare of the collective. Most of the welfare of the collective is maintained through selfish mechanisms. The proposition that only conscious altruism can lead to increase in the welfare of the collective is a false proposition characteristic of slave morality. Consequences are more important than intentions.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:35 AM
I think you failed to realize the point of my post was first and foremost to support a site member. Innocent is showing signs of anxiety or depression as well as notioning at the possibility of suicide being an option. When overthinking becomes disruptive to daily life, which in this case it seems to have done, it is a problem. Overthinking can be a direct factor to anxiety and other mental issues. (I think you "overthought" my post a bit
Oh, I see, it's just that I don't think that "not thinking" is the solution.
Even though for many people being depressed for long periods can be just a phase or the result of a stagnant social life, sometimes it's the result of psychopathology, namely clinical depression, in which case it may require psychotherapy and/or medication.
Growing up, I too experienced an existential crisis (in my case it was later exacerbated by cultural shock, homesickness and nostalgia), but unlike OP, I would have likely been on my route to recovery as soon as I had found out about the reality of achieving indefinite lifespan as a scientifically valid possibility.
How do I know that there is currently no answer to the question of "what is the point"? This is simply a subjective opinion based on what I know. There are a multitude of different religions, philosophies, and explanations at the moment. Everyone seems to be seeking the answer or has some sort of personal opinion regarding the topic. But at this moment in time, I am inclined to believe we do not have a concrete, objective answer. However, I would not be naive enough to say that the answer could not reveal itself in the future.
So you don't know.
"Currently"? If something, such as an answer, exists theoretically, if it's possible in theory, then it's outside of time, then it's there regardless of whether it has been revealed/known, is revealed/known or will be revealed/known.
"some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or 'power' you have". That is exactly what experiencing and enjoying encompass in my own subjective conclusion.
No, not exactly. I see two significant differences.
First, in my system the purpose is maximal excess while in yours it's enjoyment. The two concepts are distinct. In fact, my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself and usually a diversion (meaning that it's bad more often than it's good). Your system is hedonistic; mine isn't.
Secondly, even if "enjoyment" is understood as "excess" (let's call both x for convenience), the purposes of our systems are still distinct from each other as my system specifies quantity of x, namely the maximal quantity of x in the long run, while yours only demands that the quantity of x is positive.
However, I would never be ignorant enough to say that I have come up with an OBJECTIVE answer. How on Earth could you possibly claim to have come up with an objective answer to the purpose of life? Your conclusion is completely biased and opinionated; therefore, subjective. You have come up with a PERSONAL OPINION based on your very limited knowledge and experience (that is not a shot at you, it simply means that 20 years on this planet is a extremely short amount of time). While I do agree with your personal conclusion, I at the same time realize it is simply just our subjective answer to "what is the purpose of life".
That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable.
How can they be either, you ask? Well, the same way mathematical equations and logical propositions can. These are objective by their very nature, and they couldn't be subjective even if you tried to make them subjective. An answer cannot be "biased and opinionated," only the answerer can, yet the two are very much separate. There is a "scientific method" in the natural sciences, and it should become more wildly known that there are such methods in the formal sciences as well. Here's an example of what is required for proof in formal language systems: first you need a formal language, which is defined by defining all its symbols and their rules of grammar, then you need to account for the rules of inference, decide on the axioms of the formal language and test expressions for consistency and completeness.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:00 AM
So you don't know.
"Currently"? If something, such as an answer, exists theoretically, if it's possible in theory, then it's outside of time, then it's there regardless of whether it has been revealed/known, is revealed/known or will be revealed/known.
That is a very interesting way to look at it.
No, not exactly. I see two significant differences.
First, in my system the purpose is maximal excess while in yours it's enjoyment. The two concepts are distinct. In fact, my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself and usually a diversion (meaning that it's bad more often than it's good). Your system is hedonistic; mine isn't.
Secondly, even if "enjoyment" is understood as "excess" (let's call both x for convenience), the purposes of our systems are still distinct from each other as my system specifies quantity of x, namely the maximal quantity of x in the long run, while yours only demands that the quantity of x is positive.
I do see some differences, though I also seem much similarity. Though I must point out that I also feel this way: "my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself". Enjoyment via experience is the means by which one grows, develops, and exceeds. So a means to end - a continuous cycle of experience/enjoyment that results in growth/development. However, I won't argue with the fact that my "system" is a bit hedonistic 
That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable.
How can they be either, you ask? Well, the same way mathematical equations and logical propositions can. These are objective by their very nature, and they couldn't be subjective even if you tried to make them subjective. An answer cannot be "biased and opinionated," only the answerer can, yet the two are very much separate. There is a "scientific method" in the natural sciences, and it should become more wildly known that there are such methods in the formal sciences as well. Here's an example of what is required for proof in formal language systems: first you need a formal language, which is defined by defining all its symbols and their rules of grammar, then you need to account for the rules of inference, decide on the axioms of the formal language and test expressions for consistency and completeness.
Philosophical ideas are neither provable nor falsifiable because they are are based on subjective opinion. A million people may come up with a completely different answer to the same question (and, as you mentioned, none would be objectively wrong or right). This would be due to the fact that each person is forming a subjective opinion based on their limited knowledge and experience. Biases come into play since the question/answer is subjective.
I completely agree that mathematical equations are objective by nature. There is no subjective opinion involved. There is a concrete, objective answer. If I ask a million people what's the answer to the math equation "2 + 2" the answer would objectively be "4" - regardless of ones subjective opinion/understanding. If one person out of the million people I asked answered something other than "4", they would simply be wrong (this is not the case for philosophical inquiry). Biases play no role since the question/answer is objective in nature.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 11:35 AM
Haha, you owe me nothing. The posts on that other thread are long and heavy.
if you read that poll thread of mine you will see what you identify acquiring control or power defined even neurologically but also evolutionary and psychologically
You give biological evolution too much credit. The instincts evolution gave us, beyond the ones that aid in survival, have no meaning to them. The best thing biological evolution gave us, other than life itself, is the ability to think; now we're on our own.
My conviction is that the imperative I described comes not from the physical world, in which biological evolution occurs, but from the very nature of existence (indeed ontological and metaphysical premises preceded my conclusion, while no premises from the natural sciences did).
I wish you didn't turn that much of your attention to that one clause of mine. Yes, it can be understood in Nietzschean terms, but not in the Nietzschean view. Notice I've said "particularly:" Nietzsche doesn't hold a monopoly on this concept.Since you're using Nietzsche, the "will to power" is only there because of the "will to slave" (with that power) and vice versa.
However, the Will to Power is such a big thing in Nietzsche's philosophy that unlike most philosophers he spent a lot of his writing time elaborating on this concept. Perhaps most significantly, he talked about it as the main driving force in man, and while I don't think it is the main driving force in man, I do think that it's methodologically sound in the pragmatic sense to treat it as your own main driving force.
Since the inception of life, power (improvement of resistance) can seen as selfish (in the moment it is being acquired in) as it is in the primary interest of the individual and only a potential interest of the collective(depending on what will be done with the imporved resistance).
"Power," in this case, is not the best possible word to represent the concept, but there are few alternatives: choice, opportunity, possibility, ability.
Individual power is more often than not in agreement with collective/societal power, especially when you consider that the welfare of the particular is positively affected by the welfare of the whole. If you look at the progress of civilization, you will see that it's all a timeline of power growth. A society with high standards of living is one where its members are powerful, i.e. have more options to choose from.
The stigma comes from the idea that power is a zero-sum resource, and it would be if power was solely power by people over people, but there are different kinds of power, non-social power, which I've mentioned on the other thread: power over oneself, which is willpower, and power over things in the physical world, the means of which are called technology and technique.
It can be anything. A fork is a piece of technology. Making a fork or doing your bed requires technique. Motor skills, for example, involve a a kind of innately known technique. Choosing the best route from the shop back to your house can be thought of as requiring technique, but it also requires knowledge (skills and knowledge are two physiologically distinguished types of applicable recollections, gained and maintained by procedural memory and semantic memory respectively).
"He that cannot obey cannot command," a quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin.Slaving(sharing resistance -> reproduction of resistance (making a gene pool deposit of ones own genes) or using resistance to protect others which causes those others to learn it vicariously - protecting & teaching(depositing in the knowledge pool) is altruistic as it is in the interest of the collective.
Ability to slave is increased if the slave has more power so it makes power(improvement of resistance of an individual) an interest of the collective as well.
Since our observation of the "selfishness" of the "will to power" was an "illusion of the moment", when looking at the complete cycle of life it is not selfish.
During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power.
The employer has bargaining power over the employee because even a good employee can't be certain to find a good or better job if he loses his current job, but a good employee has bargaining power over the employer too because the employer can't always afford to lose a good employee, especially if that employee will work for the competitor and/or if the employee operates something that cannot be operated as easily by someone else (e.g., programmers hate reading others' code, some workers in real estate have to know the details of every deal). There are other sources of bargaining power in the employer-employee relationship, as labor unionists will tell you.
Life could not be incepted or persist without using power to slave for the collective(first notion of slaving is using resources to replicate rather than repair ones own damage) which ensures future.
Deliberate attempts to contribute to the welfare of the collective are not necessary for the welfare of the collective. Most of the welfare of the collective is maintained through selfish mechanisms. The proposition that only conscious altruism can lead to increase in the welfare of the collective is a false proposition characteristic of slave morality. Consequences are more important than intentions.
Edited by addx, 06 May 2014 - 11:44 AM.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:24 PM
So a means to end - a continuous cycle of experience/enjoyment that results in growth/development.
How do you define growth/development? Also, is it a means or is it an end? If it is the former, a means to what end is it?
A million people may come up with a completely different answer to the same question (and, as you mentioned, none would be objectively wrong or right).
I did not mention anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I stood up to the opposite position.
Philosophical ideas [. . .] are based on subjective opinion.
They don't have to be.
Here's a syllogism frequently encountered on IQ tests -- if all As are Bs and if all Bs are Cs, then all As are definitely Cs -- and that is a true conclusion. Now here's the inference of a false conclusion -- if some As are Bs and if Cs are some As, then some Cs are Bs -- and it's provable that it is false (objectively, of course).
Have you heard of analytic philosophy? If you haven't, I advise you to look into it.
I completely agree that mathematical equations are objective by nature. There is no subjective opinion involved. There is a concrete, objective answer. If I ask a million people what's the answer to the math equation "2 + 2" the answer would objectively be "4" - regardless of ones subjective opinion/understanding. If one person out of the million people I asked answered something other than "4", they would simply be wrong (this is not the case for philosophical inquiry). Biases play no role since the question/answer is objective in nature.
What if I told you that the logical propositions that represent philosophical truths were just as objective as mathematical equations and all other formal expressions?
Edited by Bogomoletz II, 06 May 2014 - 01:25 PM.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:58 PM
Hehe, now you owe me nothing I guess then
I'll get to it eventually, "bli neder." Not today, though, because I have an exam tomorrow.
It never gave YOU the ability to think. It gave your body an instrument(brain) to guide itself better.
I don't care whom evolution gave it to (it didn't give it to anyone since unconscious natural process don't specify who is to receive their gifts). Evolution gave me the ability to think in the sense that I have it in my possession and that I have it from evolution.
You describe our ability to think as an accident of evolution.
[. . .]
You explain this as an accident? You think we're doing the same thing evolution did(evolve) with a tool that evolution evolved(brain) and you're claim the that the tool is no way wired(evolved) to cause this, but that it is rather our free choice?
"Accident"? Jesus Christ, it's just a way of looking at it. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter if the products of evolution are "accidents" or not, and, indeed, the very concept "accident" is meaningless here.
You in fact confirm that by emphasising that biological evolution has halted.
I didn't go as far as to make the affirmative statement that biological evolution has halted; instead, I only recognized the possibility. The probability is high.
And "we're now on our own" to perform evolution.
We're on our own in the sense that no longer is our behavior decided solely by our instincts and now we're left to choose our path on our own -- by thinking.
You fail to see that our "random ability to think" for some reason creates a pressure(on average per population) to evolve, to do everything you said in your post, to exceed, to power, to develop ability - the same thing evolution has been doing "before it was halted" we proceeded to do anyway, since the birth of man.
It's not what biological evolution did or has done. For the thousandths time, evolution does only one thing: spread organisms that are good at reproducing fertile offspring. That's that.
The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it)
That idea is a myth.
against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.
"Separates biology and subjectivity"? What does that even mean? I've never said that. I've said something similar, but at the same time very different.
The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it) goes against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.
Imagine that your premises were true; how would the premise that the brain evolved in layers, beginning with the bottom "reptilian" layer, disprove or at least discredit the proposition that biology and subjectivity are separate? Looks like you jumped to a conclusion.
And I don't think my explanation of this can actually be refuted.
First of all, irrefutable explanations are unscientific according to Karl Popper. Being irrefutable does not lend a statement credence.
There is also another argument, giving a computer free choice does not make it do anything with it. It's just a stupid computer, what makes it make its choices? What makes it see opportunity in a choice? We could perhaps understand what makes a choice bad - personal disintegration, death, whatever, but what makes a choice good? What is weighed when making a choice?
*Sigh* Why bring up the same old answered questions? We've already had this discussion. Yes, a computer won't do anything if you didn't program it do something, so what?
Yes, I agree with that idea. This is fundamental to keeping an embedded evolutionary pressure. Power is always ultimately over people - in other words relative to other subjectively held power and nothing more.
Unless a single definition of the word is agreed upon, we should stop using the word "power" at once. We're not referring to the same concept. This can only lead to confusion.
To clarify once more, by the word "power" I refer to ability and to availability of choice, regardless of whether other people are involved. Regardless of whether you agree with my ad-hoc definition, this remains to be a matter of mere terminology.
This is what keeps evolution going - it makes you advance in control over environment and people, but ultimately people, as the environment doesn't "catch up" to cause everlasting evolutionary pressure.
If you were alone in the world you would perhaps invent yourself a few bridges, a roof, a fireplace and some other Gilligans island inventions and that would be pretty much it. There'd be no vision of opportunity in inventing quantum physics, what to do with it? Noone is there to gain or care about it and you don't have any gain from it either.
Yes, a society is necessary, but the society is useless if its members have no ability ("power") over parts of the physical, non-social world, such as the ability to build industrial machinery.
RE:"During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power."
And thus mammals evolve over reptiles by developing "attachment" which is still governing human thought processes (but with additional awareness function and modulation compared to lower mammals)
In itself, it has nothing to do with emotional attachment. You don't go to the bank expecting to see much emotional attachment going on.
Neither of the "moralities" are whole or can be seen as correct by itself. It's left-wing(slave morality) vs right-wing(master morality) dualism. It always existed, since ever, it's embedded in our brains, it's the two biologically created parts of the brain which cause RELATIONSHIPS to work, one individual takes the role of the master(teacher) the other of a slave(student). There's no one without the other, they complement each other and insisting on either as truth is a path to an extreme end. The two differing "awarenesses/views of the relationship/attachment situation" are facilitated by vasopressin and oxytocin circuits only evolved in mammals to support this. Vasopressin facilitates master morality while oxytocin facilitates slave morality. They do so in very much the terms Nietzsche describes them which is why I like his "split".
Well, that is clearly an unorthodox take on Nietzsche, that's for sure.
Edited by Bogomoletz II, 06 May 2014 - 01:59 PM.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:39 PM
Hehe, now you owe me nothing I guess then
I'll get to it eventually, "bli neder." Not today, though, because I have an exam tomorrow.
It never gave YOU the ability to think. It gave your body an instrument(brain) to guide itself better.
I don't care whom evolution gave it to (it didn't give it to anyone since unconscious natural process don't specify who is to receive their gifts).
Evolution gave me the ability to think in the sense that I have it in my possession and that I have it from evolution.
You describe our ability to think as an accident of evolution.
[. . .]
You explain this as an accident? You think we're doing the same thing evolution did(evolve) with a tool that evolution evolved(brain) and you're claim the that the tool is no way wired(evolved) to cause this, but that it is rather our free choice?
"Accident"? Jesus Christ, it's just a way of looking at it. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter if the products of evolution are "accidents" or not, and, indeed, the very concept "accident" is meaningless here.
And "we're now on our own" to perform evolution.
We're on our own in the sense that no longer is our behavior decided solely by our instincts and now we're left to choose our path on our own -- by thinking.
That idea is a myth.
against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.
"Separates biology and subjectivity"? What does that even mean? I've never said that. I've said something similar, but at the same time very different.
The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it) goes against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.
Imagine that your premises were true; how would the premise that the brain evolved in layers, beginning with the bottom "reptilian" layer, disprove or at least discredit the proposition that biology and subjectivity are separate? Looks like you jumped to a conclusion.
Unless a single definition of the word is agreed upon, we should stop using the word "power" at once. We're not referring to the same concept. This can only lead to confusion.
To clarify once more, by the word "power" I refer to ability and to availability of choice, regardless of whether other people are involved. Regardless of whether you agree with my ad-hoc definition, this remains to be a matter of mere terminology.
This is what keeps evolution going - it makes you advance in control over environment and people, but ultimately people, as the environment doesn't "catch up" to cause everlasting evolutionary pressure.
If you were alone in the world you would perhaps invent yourself a few bridges, a roof, a fireplace and some other Gilligans island inventions and that would be pretty much it. There'd be no vision of opportunity in inventing quantum physics, what to do with it? Noone is there to gain or care about it and you don't have any gain from it either.
Yes, a society is necessary, but the society is useless if its members have no ability ("power") over parts of the physical, non-social world, such as the ability to build industrial machinery.
RE:"During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power."
And thus mammals evolve over reptiles by developing "attachment" which is still governing human thought processes (but with additional awareness function and modulation compared to lower mammals)
In itself, it has nothing to do with emotional attachment. You don't go to the bank expecting to see much emotional attachment going on.
Neither of the "moralities" are whole or can be seen as correct by itself. It's left-wing(slave morality) vs right-wing(master morality) dualism. It always existed, since ever, it's embedded in our brains, it's the two biologically created parts of the brain which cause RELATIONSHIPS to work, one individual takes the role of the master(teacher) the other of a slave(student). There's no one without the other, they complement each other and insisting on either as truth is a path to an extreme end. The two differing "awarenesses/views of the relationship/attachment situation" are facilitated by vasopressin and oxytocin circuits only evolved in mammals to support this. Vasopressin facilitates master morality while oxytocin facilitates slave morality. They do so in very much the terms Nietzsche describes them which is why I like his "split".
Well, that is clearly an unorthodox take on Nietzsche, that's for sure.
Edited by addx, 06 May 2014 - 04:19 PM.
Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:13 AM
How do you define growth/development? Also, is it a means or is it an end? If it is the former, a means to what end is it?
The growth/development would be an "end". But, as I was mentioning, it's a continuous cycle. You experience (enjoy and appreciate) as a means which results in growth/development (exceeding) as an "end".
I did not mention anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I stood up to the opposite position.
I guess I must have misinterpreted what you intended to convey when you stated, "That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable".
They don't have to be.
Here's a syllogism frequently encountered on IQ tests -- if all As are Bs and if all Bs are Cs, then all As are definitely Cs -- and that is a true conclusion. Now here's the inference of a false conclusion -- if some As are Bs and if Cs are some As, then some Cs are Bs -- and it's provable that it is false (objectively, of course).
Have you heard of analytic philosophy? If you haven't, I advise you to look into it.
I have heard of it, but I have never looked into it. Would you recommend starting somewhere in specific?
What if I told you that the logical propositions that represent philosophical truths were just as objective as mathematical equations and all other formal expressions?
I would respond by telling you that I disagreed.
Proposition: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted
Objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality
Mathematics: the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically
Based on these definitions, I am able to arrive at the "Therefore" conclusion that logical propositions are indeed SUBJECTIVE possibilities, and that mathematical equations (with the exception of theoretical, probability, etc) is OBJECTIVE. There is no opinion involved in mathematics; there is simply right and wrong. Whereas in philosophical thought one is using opinion; which as you mentioned, is neither provable nor falsifiable.
Community →
News & Resources →
Interviews →
Philosopher Challenges Longevity Minds (Michael Lustgarten, Julie Gibson, Daniel Lewis, Dave Pascoe)Started by Michael Lustgarten , 11 Apr 2025  existentialism
|
|
|
||
Round Table Discussion →
Humanities →
Immortalism →
The love hate relationship with health and life extensionStarted by TheVP , 10 Jan 2017 immortality, life extension and 5 more...
|
|
|
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
