 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 665 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Human Mind is the "Absolute" ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats a good question - its true while it exists, and when is ceases to exist it will no longer be true, but when that occurs, by my argument, nothing will have meaning, so i say yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There is a world outside of your own sensorial realm. It imputs into you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i tend to disagree - i am honest when i say that nothing exists outside of the human experience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They can be classed as the same thing in that; Tthey are both a means to a desired end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So ? The only reson to think there is a purpous to life is one that is self generated. It's all ego, in the end? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ok, I'm going to wade back into this.......... I dispute that nothing exists outside human experience ( as before), and i hold that there is no purpose to life..... now, please continue :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the purpose to life is basically one of self choice but not just for the ego - if you think that there is a purpose to it all - you are starting to see that you can contribute the human ego - the purpose of your life is for the human ego. its the closest thing to immortality that we will ever touch. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can the "purpose" of life be the human ego? From dictionary.com pur·pose 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: 2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. Life exists for the human ego? What about animals and plants? The ego is the intended effect of life? Intended by whom or what? (god!?!?!?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This has gone way OT |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm a little of both I recon |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean purpose as in "why should i live when i can choose to not exist at all" does an animal have this choice? so this really only applies to humans - its more of a philosophical issue, when you want to live you are giving your life purpose that purpose ultimately contributes to the human ego. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am ot most of the time, but its so fun, how can you just stay within the confines of the discussion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ok, so the human ego "gives" life a purpose, whatever that purpose may be for any individual (to get laid, to have a flash car, to save human-kind, to go to work blah blah blah)... and can choose to end that life, when or if it no longer sees a purpose in continuing... yup, i agree..... without any exterior or higher purpose, goal or plan...... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dp, i really cant expect to sway you to my opinion....but this is how i truly feel, and ive studiest philophy a bit...and this solution to it 'all' seems to me to be the most fitting... when i was younger, much younger i was kind of religious but that wore off - i no longer believe in any type of religion, save buddhism and that has some problems as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dude, we're in a similar place....... studied philosophy (many years ago), rejected "religion" a long time before that, have a certain level of interest in (theravada) Buddhism............... it's the discussion that is useful........ not being right or wrong.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Who's that in your avatar? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So is Tony Blair, but I'd call him evil. So, I suppose in answer to your question, yes, I believe in good and evil. Sure sometimes good people do evil things and vice versa, but examining a person's actions as a whole you tend to be able to divide them into one camp or the other, fairly easily. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In an open system it would be impossible to deduce if a person's actions had any such connotations as good or evil- far too many variables. However I feel that any rational being knows when he or she is acting on the basis of good or evil intent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We actually had an entire discussion on this with my Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (Cult) and we of course came to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever, but I think it's inherent to the being, whether or not an action can be good or evil, but I don't think any one can ever be purely "good" or purely "evil." But also, considering the fact that "evil" is actually religious terminology, that sort of changed things, doesn't it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
by changed I mean changes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Unitarians are evil |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But not unitarian universalists! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As stated before Good and evil are measurements of a standard. There are many standards you can choose from weather it's God's, your own or some else's. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A related question, is there a real diffrence between pleasure and pain? I think the distinction is hard wired into us. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good question. I have no idea. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you must be evil then |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"s there a real diffrence between pleasure and pain?" Are you trying to be funny or deep? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Neither. The question is of the same nature as the one that prompted this thread. I know it looks obvious but then so does the distinction between Good and Evil. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
vomit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The good and evil dichotomy at least had a modicum of philosophical merit. I'll devise an experiment for you. Pleasure yourself (or get someone else if you can) and immediately afterwards hit the end of your cock with a hammer. The difference will be aparent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yet both sensations are produced by the same electro-chemical process. There is still some critera used to tell the diffrence between the two. What is the nature of that critera? That's the real question this thread is about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well I suppose somewhere along the evolutionary path it was benificial for organisms to stop smacking themselves in the genitals with hammers and so the pain response was born. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Pretty simple. Then again, is as good as any other evolutionary explanation I've heard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Usually, when trying to understand ones actions, it always helps to analyze it to the point where any damage they have done becomes irrelivant. I don't believe people ever actively think they are doing wrong. Usually they feel they are in the right. You can only really judge the consequence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont know if they are exactly the same - consider that although pleasure and pain are based on standards - we have the nervous system - thus we are biologically linked to these feelings, you could make an argument that one chooses to ignore the pain or actually likes the pain rather than pleasure. thus one will always feel the pain if you cut yourself, rather than pleasure - you might like this or you might ignore the pain, but your nervous system is hardwired to send an impulse to your brain - in this case one of pain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry for the late post, haven't been here in while. You make a good point about the nervous system sending impulses. It's the interpretation of those impulses that fascinates me. What standard is being used to separate pain from pleasure from sight from taste... etc? Taxidermist, to judge the consequence of an action you have to compare it to some standard. Comparing what is to what ought to be. What determines what ought to be? If there is no universal standard or supreme authority then one action is as valid as another even if it leads to self anihilation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
