Post Philosophies or Religious ideas that are true, but shouldn't be implemented.

[Pionart]

People can be divided into 16 types in accordance with 8 cognitive functions.

 

[á´…eparted]

Yeah that's stark Nihilism, basically life has no inherit meaning or value.

I don't see myself as a Nihilist though? Maybe so in a philosophical sense, but the way in which I behave and act in life is pretty much the opposite of it. I seek to make the most of life by enjoying as much as I can. As I understand it I have always too Nihilism to be that, but also acting in accordance with that. Essentially doing the bare minimum on everything and regarding as many things as possible with "what's the point?" and I am not like the latter part at all (unless I am fucked up in the head for a period of time).

There's no value to life, but if we lived as if there was no value to life, we would create negative value. A bit of a contradiction isn't it? Or is this bad you speak of just not an inherent bad?

I don't see how it's a contradiction. The way I see it, is it would result in people stop caring. Living conditions would slowly decrease and people would slowly cease to experience joy. I think that can be universally regarded as a bad thing.

it's interesting to see how people respond to the "blank slate."

Some people say, "I can't believe life has no inherent meaning, because then I just really don't have a reason to exist." It's like they're looking at the blank slate, hoping to take something from it and finding nothing.

Others say, "The slate is empty? Wonderful! Let me paint it and create a picture!"

So there are those try to derive meaning from life, and those who create meaning in life.

Universal meaning might not exist, but it doesn't mean personal meaning doesn't. Looking beyond life to demand a universal meaning to justify for your own... is that something visionary, or is that an unwillingness to accept death and the temporal nature of our own existence? I think that's an interesting question.

I've actually experienced both of them in my life so far (both ends rather intensely actually). I much prefer the stance of where I am now, than I do of the stances I've had in the past. Granted, I suppose it's bias to prefer where you are currently.

Oddly enough, despite the fact that years ago I was strongly in the "live must have inherient meaning and purpose" camp, I actually can no longer understand that sort of mindset and I honestly regard that viewpoint as bad. Reason being is I have seen it cause more harm than good in the vast majority of cases (myself included). In some it is helpful, but it's like a poison pill. It harms them but they need it.

I came here to say exactly this. I think history has proven that life has no inherent value -- for example, the Holocaust caused no disturbance in the Force, resulted in no righteous wrath from Above. Millions of people were murdered, and the world didn't even know until the Allies won. Then most of us looked with horror at the camps, and we Americans thought "...And we put Hitler on the cover of Time magazine!"

Which is exactly the kind of event that demonstrates why the 'Life is Precious' sentiment/philosophy is so important, even if it is demonstrated nonsense.

I wouldn't go in so far as to say history has proven it. I think the value of life is a rather subjective thing. It does make for a difficult mess to sort through, but everyone values life differently, and most are valid in their own right for one reason or another. It's just a matter of what their requirements are.

I look it more as live hasn't proven itself to have inherent value. Part of the reason for my stance is I see it as "when you're gone, your gone, and since your gone you can not regret, miss, or have any sort of thought or opinion on the matter, cause you're gone". The end game is where I derive a lot of value from. Since the end game to me is essentially deletion, there isn't much value. I mean, there is, but it's produced, not inherient.

 

[Pionart]

I don't see how it's a contradiction. The way I see it, is it would result in people stop caring. Living conditions would slowly decrease and people would slowly cease to experience joy. I think that can be universally regarded as a bad thing.
.

It's a contradiction because for life to have no inherent value, good and bad could not be applied to life (or aspects of life such as living conditions and joy) because they are terms denoting value.

edit: (however I see that you've said "Since the end game to me is essentially deletion, there isn't much value. I mean, there is, but it's produced, not inherient". That's what I meant in saying " is this bad you speak of just not an inherent bad?". So, problem solved I think)

 

[Kullervo]

Eugenics.

Not all people are born equal. This is a fact of nature which humanity had to adjust to for most of our history. However, modern medicine has given us the ability to save those who otherwise would have died an early death. Some now live full, productive lives. The problem is that as a result they live to pass on their genes, which lowers the quality of the population.

Simultaneously, feminism has led to women delaying childbirth to an age where their fertility is compromised. As a result of their selfishness, resulting children are more likely to be congenitally defective.

What concerns me is the possibility that people may doctor their childrens' genes in the future, creating (1.) an artificial class system based on genetics, and even more seriously, (2.) a population that does not age naturally. For these reasons I believe there need to be strict laws at least prohibiting positive eugenics (i.e. genetic engineering of humans).

 

[á´…eparted]

It's a contradiction because for life to have no inherent value, good and bad could not be applied to life (or aspects of life such as living conditions and joy) because they are terms denoting value.

edit: (however I see that you've said "Since the end game to me is essentially deletion, there isn't much value. I mean, there is, but it's produced, not inherient". That's what I meant in saying " is this bad you speak of just not an inherent bad?". So, problem solved I think)

Just because value metrics are still present and used, doesn't mean it's going to force a value upon something merely being around it.

Your edit is correct by what I intended and meant. Essentially, because of that, it means that value assessments fundementally mean nothing in the grand context.

 

[sprinkles]

Humans are edible.

 

[Poki]

whether an idea is true or not, the fact that it has been thought means that it exists as an idea even before the first time it was thought of since ideas exist even if no one has them.

We knows this because our experience indicates, as well as objective evidence, that ideas do not come singularly but in clusters since all scientific advances have been forwarded by multiple people contemporaneously. There is not a single idea that one man ever had that at least one or two other contemporaries have also had...and since this is true, and a fact...it must be that ideas are not bound by space and time as we are.

Finally, we also know this to be true if we broaden our definition of existence to include all those things outside of time space, and if this is the case then in that super-space all ideas would be present on the tail of time, so to speak, for lack of better word...

In other words, plato was half right, and half wrong, not totally wrong....based on the objective facts of our history....

Ideas are actions living things have, therfore they never existed before we did. while the actual "thing" existed, it was not an idea, but reality. Reality is not an idea, it is what is, and idea is what may or could be. Reality is what makes it real, not the idea itself.

 

[sprinkles]

Also when anyone is any sort of problem, we could just kill them and recycle their body parts for things that we normally use other animals for.

Human gelatin, anyone? Glue? Fertilizer?

How about a baby leather hat?

 

[Nicodemus]

Also when anyone is any sort of problem, we could just kill them and recycle their body parts for things that we normally use other animals for.

Human gelatin, anyone? Glue? Fertilizer?

How about a baby leather hat?

I'm all for it, but don't tell Charlton Heston about it. He's gonna freak.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Ideas are actions living things have, therfore they never existed before we did. while the actual "thing" existed, it was not an idea, but reality. Reality is not an idea, it is what is, and idea is what may or could be. Reality is what makes it real, not the idea itself.

Ideas are not thoughts...hence not actions. Ideas are objects in themselves which exist whether we do or do not....

Thoughts can shape an idea's implementation or discovery....but hence we say, "We invented or we discovered an idea or technology" we don't say...we say we thought of an idea...we don't say...I ideas...we say I had an idea...an idea is an object outside of ourselves and we unconsciously know this if not conscious of it.

 

[Beorn]

no one knows if life has inherent meaning or not. That is essentially unknowable.

False

My counter-argument:

 

[Nicodemus]

Ideas are objects in themselves which exist whether we do or do not....

Still not true.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Still not true.

yes they do....two people can have the same idea, in fact they always do, separated by time and space...they exist outside of us.

All of einsteins theories for example can be traced to other scientists who would have come to the same conclusion albeit it a few days to years later...same with tesla, same with newton, same with all recorded breakthroughs...there is always other people separated by vast space and time, isolated from each other, coming to the same idea, just describing it using different thoughts.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

False

My counter-argument:

she's hiding her clam yet standing on a giant clam...lol.

 

[Nicodemus]

yes they do....two people can have the same idea, in fact they always do, separated by time and space...they exist outside of us.

All of einsteins theories for example can be traced to other scientists who would have come to the same conclusion albeit it a few days to years later...same with tesla, same with newton, same with all recorded breakthroughs...there is always other people separated by vast space and time, isolated from each other, coming to the same idea, just describing it using different thoughts.

When two people look at the same picture, it is not unusual for them to form similar perceptions.

The reason I said 'still' is that you claimed this nonsense before without any sensible argument to back it up. Platonism is folly. It always has been.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

When two people look at the same picture, it is not unusual for them to form similar perceptions.

The reason I said 'still' is that you claimed this nonsense before without any sensible argument to back it up. Platonism is folly. It always has been.

ahhh...i see...you think that abstract forms do not exist and that our experience creates form instead of a pre-existing form which emerges through us...

in truth it matters in the sense that it's interesting but the results are the same whether one believes in existentialism or in some archtypal pre-form form...either way....the earth will be consumned and we will take pahllus shaped space shuttles to mars if Ellon doesn't stop us.

 

[Poki]

Ideas are not thoughts...hence not actions. Ideas are objects in themselves which exist whether we do or do not....

Thoughts can shape an idea's implementation or discovery....but hence we say, "We invented or we discovered an idea or technology" we don't say...we say we thought of an idea...we don't say...I ideas...we say I had an idea...an idea is an object outside of ourselves and we unconsciously know this if not conscious of it.

LMAO

edit...sorry, that was funny to me. S humor I guess.


edit again...I get what your saying, I really do, but ideas are a figment of our imagination and without us our imagination doesn't exist

edit again again again...I hear the damn The Twilight Zone music in my head now. Damn transference of ideas...your evil damnit...stop throwing ideas at me

edit: That was a lot of damns in one edit

edit one last time: So if an idea is an object it must have a weight, and if it has a weight, it must be able to be measured, if it can be measured it should be able to be seen(if not with a microscope of some sort)....soooooo.....nah, disagree, ideas are nothing more then a figment of our imagination. Unless your one of those people who steals other peoples ideas, therefore ideas don't actually live within you, they live within others. Trying to think this out...I am an S here and must make concrete of this.

 

[uumlau]

Yes, abstract forms can "exist" independently of concrete entities, but there are two different notions of "truth" to distinguish, with respect to abstractions.

1. The abstraction can be self-consistent, and therefore "true".
2. The abstraction correctly describes something in the real world, and is therefore "true".

Let's take something really abstract, like complex numbers. While it's fairly easy to map the Real Numbers to everyday concepts involving quantities in real life, imaginary and complex numbers would appear to not "exist" at all. Yet, the complex and imaginary number theory is all self-consistent. You can do real math with them. They just don't seem "real" or "concrete".

Yet, complex numbers aptly describe electromagnetism and quantum mechanics, among other things. In this sense, in their ability to describe something concrete, they are true in the second sense as well as the first.

Now let us consider a unicorn. We can have a completely self-consistent description of a unicorn. We can imagine a story or even a universe in which the existence of a unicorn is real, and discern real consequences of that existence. But unicorns do not exist in our world. In this case, we can have a self-consistent abstraction that exists in its own abstract "universe", and "stories" in that universe can be discerned as true or not true on the basis of the self-consistent "unicorn theory". But those abstractions and theories don't map to anything that we share in the concrete world. They are true only in the first sense, but not the second.

Now, let us suppose that we discover a "unicorn" in the real world. What is true about it? In this instance, the real, concrete unicorn would determine whether our abstractions about unicorns in general are correct. The second sense of "truth" would rely upon the reality of the unicorn: the first sense "truth" of the abstract unicorn would be irrelevant.

tl; dr - Some people tend to abuse the meaning of "real" and "exists", deliberately obfuscating the distinction of a theoretical "existence" vs a concrete existence.

 

[Nicodemus]

ahhh...i see...you think that abstract forms do not exist and that our experience creates form instead of a pre-existing form which emerges through us...

in truth it matters in the sense that it's interesting but the results are the same whether one believes in existentialism or in some archtypal pre-form form...either way....the earth will be consumned and we will take pahllus shaped space shuttles to mars if Ellon doesn't stop us.

Why posit a kind of entity of whose existence you have no indication whatsoever since all it is supposed to explain can be explained much better in other ways? You face the same problems Platonism has always faced: How can you possibily know abstract entities exist? How do they exist? How do our minds connect or discover them? Is there any way to prove them? What do they explain which could not be explained without them? How do they differ from subjective ideas and thoughts?

There is wisdom to Occam's razor.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Why posit a kind of entity of whose existence you have no indication whatsoever since all it is supposed to explain can be explained much better in other ways? You face the same problems Platonism has always faced: How can you possibily know abstract entities exist? How do they exist? How do our minds connect or discover them? Is there any way to prove them? What do they explain which could not be explained without them? How do they differ from subjective ideas and thoughts?

There is wisdom to Occam's razor.

I allude to the footprint abstractions leave behind through us to know of their existence. It is like this - if a person steps in the sand and leaves a footprint then we know that whatever put that print there exists.

It is the same with an idea. You and I have ideas, but really, we discover ideas, because ideas are non-temporal objects - if we define objects as things that can act or act upon rather than a person, place, or thing...

IF we are the prints in the sand, then the idea is the shoe or the person.

This is the reason why some believe that archtypes are preset and evolve as we do...this is the argument for a mythological reality which parallels our own and influences it...only if we are speaking from the perspective of power, a myth affects our reality more than any single or group of individuals, albeit, not as powerful as the sun, but more powerful than anything else we can conceive.

Ideas are powerful but we don't feel them this way because they outlive us by 1000's of years.

But even if idea's are not objects, they are something which exists and remains partially affected and partially unaffected by time. The essence of an idea is eternal...it's implementation by a life form at any given moment subjective and subject to distortion.

For example, there is a universal equation for a net, and there are distortions and filters and alterations of the equation depending on the type of net - neural net, galaxy, internet, etc...

but there is one underlying universal equation which is the basis for them all...this equation exists outside of time and is a truer reality than the permutations of time waves...if we define truer as that which does not change.

When a man or woman internalizes this sort of thought process...nothing seems insignficant. Smallest act of kindness is part of an eternal motion of love wave which one becomes a part of. Walls break down, barriers are shattered, and the psyche begins to see that more is possible than once was thought...

That is why, [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION], I gaze at the sun and let it melt my wings, then fall into the water and swallow myself like a great Leviathan, because we are one.