Philosophia - Page 2

Godslayer Jillian · 06-30-2006, 01:17 AM

I would consider it more logical to say that the ones that have a right to live are the ones that can keep their life.

happy_dude · 06-30-2006, 01:30 AM

Ah, survival of the fittest. However by that you are condoning psychopaths running down streets firing at will. You are saying that if the unarmed people can't keep themselves alive they don't deserve to be alive, is that right?

Bete Noire · 06-30-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCastrator

Purpose? Hm. I suppose there's the biological view; to propogate the species, et cetera et cetera.

But there's more to it, I think. As humans, we can go against the grain. For example, we defeat millions of years of evolution by sticking a bit of latex on.
That doesn't give a purpose, not in the slightest, but it gives us the chance to create our own purposes; to value what we wish to value, and disregard what we find no interest in.

I don't think I know just yet, what my purpose is. I don't see any inherent meaning in life beyond "We live to breed" so I can only ponder what I am and value the things I value and so on.
Ah look, I'm sticking to what I've been saying for ten years; the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life.

I agree with you on this. Apart from the meaning of life bit. I don't think there is a meaning. We can create our own purpose in life, but we are not born with one, neither will we always complete our purpose.

(Sorry if I'm making (even) less sense than usual. I'm suffering from sleep deprivation.)

Corpsey · 06-30-2006, 07:56 PM

A purpose in life? I have had many opinions about this, over the years, but most of these opinions cancell each other out, and i just become bamboozled.

The first purpose: to follow god's will.
I percieve that a purpose in life is to follow god's will, if you believe in that sort of thing, to try to live in a way that glorifies god.

But then I wonder, "What is god's will?"; I believe that god didn't just put us here for us to run around, learn about life, love & pain to then just die, without some sort of purpose. But then, I think, what about all those who die meaninglessly? Did they just arrive here to be the toys of oppressive basards and then to be thrown away when such a person is disinterested with them? Why does god put people through such torment? Why do all the crappiest things imaginable happen to some of the nicest people, yet those who do some of the most vile things imaginable live in splendor? Eventually, I read Ecclesiastes; this explained a lot about why things like this occur. I now just accept that this world is currently being ruled by a dickwad that enjoys people's torment, and that if god just stepped in and went "ZAP! KA-BLAM!" and fried him off the earth immediately he inturn would look like a ruthless dictator, and thus had to let time pass to proove who was correct, after lucifer's challenge. It's a massive conundrum that occurs in my head, but that's a summarization of what I think about the godly purpose in my life.

The second purpose: To "live" like there will be no tomorrow.
To hell with all depressing theories about life, I think that life has a purpose to be content with what we have, and live like we will live forever. When life's down, stop and think about it, but when the going's good, we should take advantage of it. Although a rediculous amount of things in life seem pointless to me, I think it's incredible to be able to experience the good and bad, so I guess you could say that a sub purpose in life is to live and experience things, or, more specifically, to learn.

Jillian, i may sound like a dork for asking this, but who is Schrodinger, and what do you find so important about him? I looked him up on wikipedia, but it didn't greatly go into what he thought about life, just that he wrote a book about it.

Godslayer Jillian · 06-30-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy_dude

You are saying that if the unarmed people can't keep themselves alive they don't deserve to be alive, is that right?

Not quite, but close. Those who die don't always deserve to die, but you can only deserve life if you can hang on to it.
It would seem basically the same, but look into the small details. Your statement would be correct if you said it like this:
If an unarmed person couldn't keep himself alive, he doesn't deserve to be alive [b]anymore.
The difference is that in your statement, I would be condemning all his life as worthless. On my statement, he couldn't keep his life anymore, so he doesn't deserve to live anymore.
If you look at it, it's simple; basic; almost another koan.

Godslayer Jillian · 07-01-2006, 02:57 AM

Oh, and, Corpsey, Schrodinger wasn't a philosopher. He didn't say anything regarding life (at leat not precisely).
But his cat has changed the way physics see the world. If the speculations about his cat are right, it seems the universe has no tolerance for free will after all.

Corpsey · 07-03-2006, 05:54 PM

Interesting, thanks for that. I read the bit about his cat and I finally understood what you said in the randomnes thread.

Corpsey · 07-03-2006, 06:09 PM

What sorts of rights do people have in life then, Santarea? I agree with you, and think that it's mere luck that many of us are here today, including myself, but what would you consider a 'right' that everybody deserves?

happy_dude · 07-03-2006, 06:23 PM

An anarchist we have in our midst it seems. Now that I think about it we don't really have any real rights, only a concept that makes this world a slighlty better place to live in.
Santarea I like your signature.

Niels · 07-04-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santarea

And yet, accidents do happen.

Indeed they do. However, accidents don't happen accidentally. It's not something that comes from they 'outside' which has nothing to do with you, you are not just some unwanting victim.

Jesus said: 'Those who want to live, shall live.' Being a non-christian, I do believe this. Now I know this may sound harsh, but hear me out:

I have read a book: 'The meaning of illness' (I don't know the official english translation...) by Dethlefsen and Dalkhe. They expain, following the buddhistic philosophy that the psyche is unwhole because of the duality of the mind, that disease is the way to follow if you want to become 'whole'. In short: disease points out what points you need to work on in your psyche. For instance: inflammation is caused by a conflict in the psyche, thus it can be cured by solving the conflict (believe it or not, I have actually seen this method work with severe heart diseases and bone diseases!).

Now for the accidents: Let's say, you work in grocery store. You are mid 20's and not really having a purpose with your life. You just live by the day not caring about tomorrow. I those cases, 'disease' will strike, to make you aware of the fact that you are going the wrong direction. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like working in a grocery store IS a wrong direction, but it CAN be, if it unables you to become 'whole'.
In this case, disease wants to tell you to go another direction with your life, so, it will tell you this by letting a car hit you from the right when you were about to go forward.

So basically, you have chosen to remain on the path you were walking, 'life' saw the path didn't make you 'whole', send disease in the form of an accident to make you aware of this.

Of course, todays humans don't understand this language anymore, because we all like to blame external factors like virusses, bacterias or our fellow humans for our misery.

This was really a very short synopsis of a very complicated and abstract theory. It really brought a new perspective to my life, but of course I can´t put todays paradigm aside...

Niels · 07-04-2006, 06:11 PM

Oh, and to answer the question of this thread: to reach a higher form of existence. As in, being one with God (not in a monotheistic way), a.k.a The All. As in Everything, Nothing.

Niels · 07-05-2006, 02:40 AM

But the question is: does the microbe infiltrate the body or does the body let the microbe in...?

roserougesang · 07-09-2006, 06:25 PM

The idea of finding truth and beauty sounds wonderful but the poll point seems a bit of a generalization. There are many different kinds of truth and beauty and everyone has different opinions about them. An individual person searching for true beauty and truth may be searching along a different path from another person. Beauty will always and forever be a matter of opinion, despite what some parts of the media try to tell you is beautiful.

Santarea2.0 · 07-09-2006, 06:28 PM

It is my experience that truth has very little to do with anything and that the alleged search thereof is a lie designed to get smart chicks into bed.

Draconysius · 07-09-2006, 07:12 PM

Some people seek truth, fact, and observation in everything they do. However, there really is no way to know the absolute truth of anything, so it is merely pointless, at least in my opinion. There are things in existence that I cannot comprehend, and I doubt anyone can. Humanity has a natural need to label and explain every aspect of reality when they really cannot know anything.

Don't Look Behind You · 07-17-2006, 06:33 AM

I prefure viewing the existance of beings with intelligence like humans as a big mistake of nature. I can hardly imagine that there is a meaning to all of this and I hope there really isn't one. We built up a whole world around us with myths, God, tradition...I just enjoy the beauty of it all. Its like a picture the author of which himself didn't know what he wanted to say. It is interesting being the product of a mess up. I don't even dare to search for the meaning becuase what if I find one? Even if it is the wrong one, that would break me up. Imagine knowing why all this world exists? Only one, simple reason...for all of this. I think that would make existance even more senceless.
Knowing that there is absolutely no reason for me to be here, I just sort of ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, that is the only thing that keeps me alive.

dragonkeeper · 07-17-2006, 01:12 PM

the only true purpose in life is to die... you can serve a god or a goddess... all your life... love all the people you want to love and be loved by them....walk around with no purpose....obtian all the health and beauty and wealth.... only one end result... death... something to think about....

Godslayer Jillian · 07-17-2006, 07:08 PM

Dilemma for the ages:

In the near future, life can be created by RNA and protein engineering. Any creature phisiognomically possible can be created.
An RNA engineer creates small rodents with the sole purpose of killing them (a hobby of his).
The rodents die painfully and were created for the specific task of being killed.
Would killing these creatures be a crime? If you think so, then why?

Alaizabel Cray · 07-17-2006, 07:55 PM

Interesting question to think about, Godslayer Jillian. If the engineer created them himself, then he has the right to destroy them. It's not really animal cruelty since that only really applies to animals you did not create, since as of today we don't generate animals ourselves, at least not on a massive scale, they are formed by other animals. But then I suppose there's the destiny question: If the rodents weren't destined to die that way at that time, they'd survive it until their number was up. I don't believe in everything being pre-destined, but I do believe that everything happens for a reason, and that we don't die until we've accomplished whatever we were meant to accomplish. I know I sound like a bad Dr. Phil impressionist, but everyone does have something to contribute to the world, even if they themselves never realize what it is. But to answer the question already, if he and only he created them, then no, it is not a crime.

Persephone Hazard · 07-19-2006, 01:27 PM

Yes, I answered to poll-but not quite as you'd expect me to. I try not to think about 'the meaning of Life', instead choosing to direct my energies towards 'the meaning of life'.

I shall explain. I personally feel that wondering about the meaning of Life is pretty damn pointless, really. We're the only animal that does it. And let's be serious, we're never going to know. It's probably got more to do with some form of deity than many of us like to accept-but then again, it might not.

But, on the other hand, ordinary day-to-day life-now *that's* worth thinking over. I don't know why we're here but here we are, and there's so much scope for enjoyment. We may as well seize it with both hands, and ride the horse as hard as possible.

Speaking of riding the horse hard, I suppose I have a bit of a sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll approach to this particular type of philosophical disscussion. Many think of this as self-destructive, but only those stupid enough to not look where they're going or screwed up enough not to care hurl themselves off clifftops. I'm perfectly happy teetering along the edge in my four-inch spike heels.

Circle V · 08-06-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Dilemma for the ages:

In the near future, life can be created by RNA and protein engineering. Any creature phisiognomically possible can be created.
An RNA engineer creates small rodents with the sole purpose of killing them (a hobby of his).
The rodents die painfully and were created for the specific task of being killed.
Would killing these creatures be a crime? If you think so, then why?

It should be a crime. Think of this scenario:

A couple really need some help around the house. To fix this problem, they have a child together and use it as a slave-- or, to use a more extreme (and perhaps more suitable) example, each person has repressed homicide urges. They have a child, wait until it is ten, and then kill it for fun. This, of course, would be illegal and amoral. I don't see much of a difference between this and Jillian's scenario.

Alaizabel Cray · 08-08-2006, 11:06 PM

But then, Circle V, they aren't the sole creators of the child. They didn't engineer it in a laboratory, meaning that it is also the creation of their parents and their parents before them, etc. So it is not their choice to decide whether the kid lives or dies, "you cannot kill that which you did not create". Sure, they created the kid if you wanna get technical about it, but so did everyone else in the family tree almost. However with the lab rat scenario, the animals are genetically engineered from scratch more-or-less and are the creation of the creator and the creator alone. So the creator chooses what happens in its life to a certain extent. One could also argue about whether or not the animals have a soul if they are engineered in a tank, to which I have no feelings that point me in either direction.

Deviant Kitten · 08-09-2006, 04:25 AM

In my opinion, even if you are the sole creator of a living creature, the very fact that it's alive and sentient means that it is autonomous and should not be subject to the will of its creator.

What if the couple in Circle V's example really had created that child through protein engineering? Should the child then be the property of its "parents" and exempt from all human rights laws? I don't believe so.

Interesting thread, Jill - it's good to see that there's still some intelligent discussion going on at G.net.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-09-2006, 11:04 AM

Kitten!! I missed you. *hugs n' kisses*
But there are some things about those theories...
Alaizabel: The scientist also has parents, and it was thanks to his family tree that allowed the scientist to exist, that it was possible for the creature to exist.
Kitten: The problem with the should is that it's all relative. Not being submitted to our creator would be heavily disputed by a Catholic for example (who would also speak in favor of the creature nevertheless). Plus, there will be some cynics that won't think being sentient gives an automatic right to life.
I love this questions because they all have a different answer with every person you ask (and about 3 answers with me O_o)

Alaizabel Cray · 08-09-2006, 08:55 PM

Aw, crap, Jillian found a hole in my theory. Well, uh... what if the creator was Kyle XY and supposedly has no family tree? (Ok, that was really lame of me. You'll all have to excuse me, I'm going through some stuffs with my meds and I seem to be saying stupid things all over the place.)

But I've got more to add. Even if my theory involving the creator had a hole in it, what about fate? What if the animals are predestined to die at a certain time in a certain way just by being created? I'm not saying that this means that every murder ever commited has just become a natural death rather than a homicide, but rather that when someone/something is killed, that's whta is supposed to happen. Everyone affected by the loss needs to experience that loss for some reason or another, whether it causes them to realize that they need to change something about themselves, or it allows them relief from worry about the now deceased. So in a way, is it even entirely the scientist's decision to kill these animals? Or is there more behind it?