247 réponses à ce sujet

[CynicalShep]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

All of those sharp edges, gotta tread carefully. Smart people don't exist, good-looking people don't exist, maniacs and terrorists don't exist and KainD lives in lala land. Everything is subjective, therefore nothin exists, hurrdurr. Kain pls

So nothing is true, and everything is permitted? 

It's all fair game, man. Have a go at it. Whenever you get arrested or shot just tell them how wrong they are, I'm sure they'll consider their wrong ways.

[KainD]

Br3ad wrote...

And no matter what it is true because his sig says so. Except for when you disagree with him. Then it's just wrong. 

Of course you are wrong if you disagree with me. But that's in my world, in your world you are right. 

[slimgrin]

This was a pretty straight forward topic to discuss...

[MassivelyEffective0730]

KainD wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm a subjective guy, but I'm also a guy who believes in logic and reason. You can have an opinion, but if you can't back it up with facts, logic, and some kind of proper a priori, that doesn't mean its valid. 

Logic is subjective as well.. you make conclusions based on your personal observations, and your personal rationaliations. You say people who kill women for studying are sensless. Clearly those people think that they are in the right and have sound reasoning for their actions, you just don't agree. 

It comes down to a basis in hatred and fear. Those are both clearly irrational, especially with how they're presented. It's hate towards an unknown, and fear towards an unknown. Therefor, there's no basis for a real argument behind it. They can't back up a belief with observation and science. Then it comes to a point, where the perspective is still subjective, but no less wilted in growth. The only thing that grows from it is more hatred and fear. So yeah, it is unreasonable. 

Contrary to what Philosophy will tell you, logic is not subjective when it is based on science. This whole argument you've chosen is the argument of semantics. It is possible to hold a nihilist view while still holding objective views, unless you deliberately want to stay in a system of fear and hatred all your life. Which of course goes against our own biological perogative.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 22 décembre 2013 - 11:30 .

[Br3admax]

Existentialism is so 20th century. You can very much in fact be wrong.

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Stop right there. Are we arguing semantics, having a philosophy debate or discussing video-game tropes? What if my lala land is very similar to someone else's lala land? What if there's 5 billions of us?

Even the opinion of the majority is not a criteria for truth. 

So let me guess, truth doesn't exist either?
After all, what's true for me isn't true for everybody

[KainD]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
They can't back up a belief with observation and science. 

Realise this. God, if one ''exists'', is beyond observation and science. If believer would prove to you the existence of a God, that wouldn't be a God anymore and they would lose their own argument. You shouldn't be able to prove it, or it won't be a God anymore. 

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote...

So let me guess, truth doesn't exist either?
After all, what's true for me isn't true for everybody

The universal thruth? We simply don't know. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

KainD wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I think the fact that everyone can agree that they subjectively have those ideas and concepts is what makes them a reality. Even if it is a difference of perspective, everyone at least has the concept of what beauty is, or what intelligence is, or what a hero is. So declaring that because everyone has an idea, that the idea doesn't exist, seems like just plain crazy talk to me.

That would be true if absolutely everyone had an idea of those things, and not everyone do. 

Name me a society without a concept of beauty, intelligance, and heroism. Go ahead, I'm putting you on the clock.

[Cainhurst Crow]

CynicalShep wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

All of those sharp edges, gotta tread carefully. Smart people don't exist, good-looking people don't exist, maniacs and terrorists don't exist and KainD lives in lala land. Everything is subjective, therefore nothin exists, hurrdurr. Kain pls

So nothing is true, and everything is permitted? 

It's all fair game, man. Have a go at it. Whenever you get arrested or shot just tell them how wrong they are, I'm sure they'll consider their wrong ways.

HELL YEAH! Let's break some non-exsistent subjective rules!

[Nharia1]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

KainD wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I think the fact that everyone can agree that they subjectively have those ideas and concepts is what makes them a reality. Even if it is a difference of perspective, everyone at least has the concept of what beauty is, or what intelligence is, or what a hero is. So declaring that because everyone has an idea, that the idea doesn't exist, seems like just plain crazy talk to me.

That would be true if absolutely everyone had an idea of those things, and not everyone do. 

Name me a society without a concept of beauty, intelligance, and heroism. Go ahead, I'm putting you on the clock.

does said society have to be human?

[KainD]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Name me a society without a concept of beauty, intelligance, and heroism. Go ahead, I'm putting you on the clock.

Fictional society counts? First thing that comes to mind: 
Sith. Might makes right - simple as that. No real concepts on beauty, especially if multiple aliens are a part of the society. Intelligance not always nesecary, as a powerful sith might overome anything with just brute force. Heroism basically doesn't exist for them. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

KainD wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
They can't back up a belief with observation and science. 

Realise this. God, if one ''exists'', is beyond observation and science. If believer would prove to you the existence of a God, that wouldn't be a God anymore and they would lose their own argument. You shouldn't be able to prove it, or it won't be a God anymore. 

Ooh, you've been reading David Hume and Thomas Aquinas! Then you'll know that to precipitate that any kind of realm of metaphysics beyond the 3 dimensions that we place before us cannot be objectively stated, nor given any kind of scientific, observable effect, must be rendered irrelevant and non-science. You're presupposing you're entire argument based on the idea of a god having traits ascribed to him by beings that shouldn't have knowledge of him. It's beings saying a god exists, but that he can't be known. That causes a paradox. How can physical beings that cannot know something beyond observation and science know of the existence of God or make a claim that cannot have evidence since it is beyond our observation and science? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Oh, Philosophy majors...

[Cainhurst Crow]

KainD wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

And no matter what it is true because his sig says so. Except for when you disagree with him. Then it's just wrong. 

Of course you are wrong if you disagree with me. But that's in my world, in your world you are right. 

Well then you obtuse gabberknacker, you're not in your world anymore buddy.

[SgtSteel91]

Trying to read through this thread.

Feels like Kenneth Donnelly when discussing whether Edi is the Normandy or a passenger of the ship with Lieutenant Adams.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 22 décembre 2013 - 11:46 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Nharia1 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

KainD wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I think the fact that everyone can agree that they subjectively have those ideas and concepts is what makes them a reality. Even if it is a difference of perspective, everyone at least has the concept of what beauty is, or what intelligence is, or what a hero is. So declaring that because everyone has an idea, that the idea doesn't exist, seems like just plain crazy talk to me.

That would be true if absolutely everyone had an idea of those things, and not everyone do. 

Name me a society without a concept of beauty, intelligance, and heroism. Go ahead, I'm putting you on the clock.

does said society have to be human?

The proposal was that heorism doesn't exist in our world. Therefore yeah, a society that exists in the real world, that proves that not everyone has concepts of beauty, intelligance, and heroism, even on a subjective level.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Trying to read through this thread.

Feels like Kenneth Donnelly when discussing whether Edi is the Normandy or a passenger of the ship with Lieutenant Adams.

Simple answer. She is. The Normandy can operate without her, therefore, she's an enhancement, a technological crewmember. I wouldn't necessarily call her a passenger, since that would imply she doesn't do anything except sit on board.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

KainD wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

And no matter what it is true because his sig says so. Except for when you disagree with him. Then it's just wrong. 

Of course you are wrong if you disagree with me. But that's in my world, in your world you are right. 

Well then you obtuse gabberknacker, you're not in your world anymore buddy.

And believe me, I know exactly what obtuse gabberknacker he's using too.

He's not the only person that took Philosophy 101.

[Cainhurst Crow]

KainD wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Name me a society without a concept of beauty, intelligance, and heroism. Go ahead, I'm putting you on the clock.

Fictional society counts? First thing that comes to mind: 
Sith. Might makes right - simple as that. No real concepts on beauty, especially if multiple aliens are a part of the society. Intelligance not always nesecary, as a powerful sith might overome anything with just brute force. Heroism basically doesn't exist for them. 

The proposal was that heorism doesn't exist in our world. So no, you can't use a fictional society to defend your point, considering your only evidence was "not everyone has those concepts".

And the sith do have a concept of beauty, it lies in power. Those with more power and more beautiful, and beauty in it of itself can offer power over others and so they would recognize such a thing as existing. Intelligence, cunning, ingenuity, all things that demonstrate superiority and therefore would be valued. And actions done that push the entire empire forward would most like be seen, at least to those living under the sith an to the sith themselves, as heroes to them.

[KainD]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Ooh, you've been reading David Hume and Thomas Aquinas! Then you'll know that to precipitate that any kind of realm of metaphysics beyond the 3 dimensions that we place before us cannot be objectively stated, nor given any kind of scientific, observable effect, must be rendered irrelevant and non-science. You're presupposing you're entire argument based on the idea of a god having traits ascribed to him by beings that shouldn't have knowledge of him. It's beings saying a god exists, but that he can't be known. That causes a paradox. How can physical beings that cannot know something beyond observation and science know of the existence of God or make a claim that cannot have evidence since it is beyond our observation and science? 

I personally agree with the fact that religion is irrelevant to life, and don't think that something beyond would somehow be involved in our life, so it's not very easy for me to argue from a point that is not my own. 
But what religious people say is simply that: ''Since it is God, anything is possible, and you won't always understand.'' And they kinda have all these observable, real miracles that God does for them, even if others might think it is not God that does it. 

[KainD]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh, Philosophy majors...

I am actually an artist, I compose music and work with sound. 

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

So let me guess, truth doesn't exist either?
After all, what's true for me isn't true for everybody

The universal thruth? We simply don't know. 

How is universal truth, which is an unknown(and a flawed concept, IMO), relevant to the human race? After all, we are talking about the universe known to us. Does truth exist in the "known" universe?

[SgtSteel91]

I almost took a philosophy class in my semester of Colllege. But I was also taking 3 tough aerospace engineering classes and I didn't want the inevitable readings and papers I was going to write.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 22 décembre 2013 - 11:53 .

[KainD]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The proposal was that heorism doesn't exist in our world. So no, you can't use a fictional society to defend your point, considering your only evidence was "not everyone has those concepts".

I can't give you a modern example, but what does that mean? What is a society? Every person in the society has their own views on everything. People just stick together for convienience.