 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 610 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh piss off you know full well what I mean, but let's take it down to the lowest level then you can't change something that physically exists into something that doesn't physically exist. that's fundamental for you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sure you can. e = mc^2 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes studying isn't depending on observation; you can study things that aren't observable; people do this every day and even scientists do it; atoms, for instance. consciousness can be studied, and so can the way in which the concept of "good" appears in different cultures, but you don't observe "good" or "consciousness." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so energy doesn't physically exist then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK, let's stop arguing over vocabulary. I think we've both made our point. So if "good" is a metaphysical something that is real to us, what's your problem? Don't you think you were mischaraccterizing what he said? I certainly didn't read what he wrote to mean that there was a physical block of "goodishness" somewhere in human transactions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mohammed fucks animals,mostly pigs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I guess I was reacting to his general sense that "good" is something that is universal (which often implies that it has existence). and now that I read shit again, I already got him to admit that it is socially dependable, so I'm satisfied. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course energy exists physically. But do you know about vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles? It's certainly possible for matter / energy to come into and pass out of existence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Ezzie's point as far as I can tell is that human actions and their effects are empirically observable whereas presuppositions regarding God are not." yeah, thats what i was getting at and drunken mastah, you are an atheist?!?!?! nice ! that's the most suprising thing ive heard in ages!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course they're related, why do you think they're so etymologically similar? :-) But still the answer is yes, my good would be exactly as good without the concept of "God"...it's not about being good on the name or something, or pleasing something, it's being good cos it's the morally correct thing to do! Witness certain people who arrive at their belief system of goodness without even hearing of "God"...of whom there are many... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how in the world were you trying to get at that by saying "With good, you observe directly the cause and its positive effect. " "with good, you see the causing action and the effect" ?!?! I've not argued that you cannot see the results of human actions, I've argued that you in no way can see the result of "good" anywhere. what if the person performing the action you percieve as "good" with bad intentions? what if he somehow thought he'd hurt the person he was saving from drowning (he's a bit mad)? would you still say "good" was the cause of the action and that the action was the effect of good? however, I think I already made my point. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've not argued that you cannot see the results of human actions, I've argued that you in no way can see the result of "good" anywhere. Sooo, you're saying that you can see the result of human actions, but you can't see the result of good anywhere...therefore you're saying no human actions are good... :-/ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
intentions can be good or bad (though not objectively. it is only the person him/herself who knows what their intentions are). actions can not. it's not unimportant to act on your intentions, but there's not necessary link between a good intention and a good act being performed or its outcome being percieved as good by onlookers, nor is there a link between a bad intention and the resulting action (if it is performed) being percieved as bad by onlookers. onlookers (is that a word really?) from different cultures will interpret the actions and add their own "value" (good/bad) to the action, but just as there is no bear in the skies (only clouds), "good" or "bad" doesn't lie in the action and objectively it is nowhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is all getting a bit deep and off topic. Let's focus on the basics; It's wrong to want to behead someone because they drew a cartoon, no matter how offensive it is to you. I find jeans and blazers worn together offensive, but if I wanted to kill people for wearing them, I'd be seen as some sort of Patrick Bateman. We shouldn't be precious about these things, just because it's religion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how in the world were you trying to get at that by saying "With good, you observe directly the cause and its positive effect. " "with good, you see the causing action and the effect" I really dont see the conflict there. And I still dont see the link between "good" and "god" at all. Ill agree you have a point about the concept of good differing in different cultures etc. As for the hidden bad intentions, well if any action gives a positive effect, then surely it must be good. The actor's intentions arent necessarily relevant in all cases. Not sure really though. jeri's right though! this should have its own thread |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, there's no apparent conflict, but I saw your main point to be that you could "observe [good] directly" in actions, and that just isn't possible. and in which way god and good are similar if you say that "good" is something objective (as you said in the beginning).. well.. if you're familiar with Nietzsche and the meaning of the phrase "god is dead," and certain interpretations of that, I think it'll be easier to understand it from that than from me.. I'm not that good at putting things like these into (english) words, but with that phrase in mind.. "god is dead" doesn't necessarily mean that god literally has died, it could be a figure to imply that objective truth has disappeared. as a whole, the concepts of truth and good (and other such concepts) were previoulsy thought to be objective things that were omnipresent, eternal, unchangeable and stuff like that.. much like god. god(s) has also throughout history been referred to as "the good" and "the truth." In other words: If good was something that existed objectively outside of society and humans, it'd be much like the christian notion of god; nowhere to be found and both proof and traces of it could be seen, as god, throughout the creation. "if any action gives a positive effect, then surely it must be good" no, because the action doesn't have any value like that; you interpret the action, and there are as many possible interpretations as there are interpreters; the action itself says nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mohammed is gay |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Amen to that! Freedom of expression for all, unless that crosses lines of decency (eg holocaust denial, calling for another 9/11 cos someone drew something and it was published, that sort of thing) And before anyone says how do we know know where to draw the line, simple, ask me ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So if you save someone from drowing, it can't be considered a positive action? Of course I appreciate the distinction you're trying to make, but it's far too subtle imho |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course it can be considered a positive action! I've not argued against that... I'm just saying it isn't a positive action; we consider it a positive action, but the action has no value in itself, and there's no way to tell from the action whether or not the person performing it was performing it because he thought it was good or bad. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry, disagree, someone cries "Nooo!", rips off their shirt, dives into the water, heroically pulls out a drowning baby and sits quietly sobbing and looking up to the sky as its mother rushes to hold it in her arms... I'd say it's a no-brainer to guess whether the person saving the kid thought it was a good or bad action! P.S. Onlooker is indeed a word...just so you know :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, imagine a similar case where the person just jumps into the water, pulls the kid out and then walks quietly away... also, the person in your example could be shouting "Nooo!" because he thinks the kid is going to survive in the water while he wants the kid to die, so he jumps into the water and pulls the kid out into air where he believes it will die, but when it doesn't he has no idea what to do (water won't kill it, nor will air), so he starts to cry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
keep going mates, you'll get to 1000 in no-time at this rate |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
surely you could define a good action as one that gives a positive effect, no matter of the actual action. as long as the guy drowning in the river was happy that he was saved, then the action was good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is a positive effect? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the little topic that could! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i would define a positive effect as the subject of the effect becoming happy/feeling better. (e.g. kid gets given a balloon, kid becomes happy) although theres probably going to be grey areas involved. but in this case "good" would only really apply to humans. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Since you're the one propounding theories, we'll use my examples, OK? :-) I'd agree that in some cases it's ambiguous, but one size doesn't fit all in this case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so if the kid was suicidal, it was bad to save him from drowning as he would be very unhappy as a result of not even being able to kill himself? what about the danish sect who believed that they would save all of their fellow humans by killing babies instantly after them having been baptised, thus granting them immediate entrance into heaven (and thus eternal bliss)? and what about the performer? if a person has to cut off his arm to save someone else, surely he won't be happier? and what if the performer is a sadist who enjoys tormenting others? what if there's a society of twenty sadists tormenting one person.. all twenty sadists are extremely happy, and the person is unhappy. does that one person outweigh the other twenty peoples' happiness? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, I think we'll use whatever examples are available and suitable... what do you mean by the last part of your post? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Exactly. Grey areas. hhmmmm............... for the kid, it wasnt a good action (although his opinion might change later on) the danish babies wouldnt be very happy about being killed (assuming they were able to know what was going on) so that wasnt a good action for the sadists, well the actions are affecting different people in different ways in this situation, so good is just a matter of perspective. fuck it. lets say "good" is entirely down to perspective. its much easier. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck it. lets say "good" is entirely down to perspective. its much easier. there we go! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha, yeah your first point (ages ago) was something about "good" being related to "god". what was all that about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do I have to explain it again? I'll lay it out If we believed good existed as something objective, the only way to observe it would be in the same way as christians observe god; through looking at stuff around you and going "oh! check it out! good(/god) is there!" or "good(/god) caused this to happen!" the properties of good would also be very similar to gods properties: unobservable, able to "counter" or "dodge" any problem set before it simply by always being good(/god), you would't really be able to have any rational justification for "good," you'd just be nothing more than a believer (much like a christian who believes in god). the laws of "good" would be omnipresent and you could always justify any action by saying it was "in the name of good(/god)!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
surely good is just a property that an action is deemed to have? whereas god is supposed to be a physical/actual entity |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I surely don't want to get into this debate, but I don't think you'd find many people who hold the opinion that God is a physical entity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, first of all good is just a property that an action is deemed to have? yes, this is somewhat like what we've defined good as now but remember where the whole thing began, where I intoduced the similarity between god and good? read my post again and see if I said "If we believed good existed as something objective [...]" or if I said "If we believed good existed as a purely individual and highly debatable concept subject to many interpretations and definitions [...]" I never compared the last "definition" of the concept of good to god, but I did compare the way you first presented your view on good to god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"This is all getting a bit deep and off topic. Let's focus on the basics; It's wrong to want to behead someone because they drew a cartoon, no matter how offensive it is to you." and that's where I think you're wrong - the whole trouble starts with people staying too much at the basic level, never trying to think a few steps further, to finally see all the different shades between black and white, even to a point when the difference is hardly discernible. an Egyptian actor who moved to the Netherlands about 25 years ago just started performing a piece about Mohammed and how he sees him when all this started - a complete coincidence. he is a Muslim and he knew when he started his project that he couldn't really do it, but he still went ahead, he even signed a contract with the theatres he's performing at to make sure he can still perform it, no matter what would happen (in the end nothing has happened, ofcourse). he made a great point, I think - he said "let us make fun of our own god first, before you come barging in". he says muslims already make lots of jokes about their own religion but there's still a barrier. he is sure though that it will be broken, but not because outsiders think this is the right time. muslims must be the first ones to make to those steps. it is that kind of nuance that I think we should keep looking for, not the boiling down of news into easily debatable nuggets. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not sure what all that in the middle is about, but I agree that this tendency to simplify everything is alarming and most likely a result of the way we're starting to resurrect "good" (like they did for the nuremberg trials) where everything ends up either good or bad (or black and white, as people say) and the greys are left out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
πολύ ζήστε mohammed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're the one with the theory, therefore "suitable" examples are the ones with the best chance of challenging it(!) A-hanyway, I thought it was obvious what I meant...some cases are ambiguous, but some are blatantly obviously cases in which good can be observed in actions...and of course bad! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we're both proposing theories.. the difference is that your theory claims the existence of something "extra," something which exists objectively without having existence. no case is "obvious".. you have to have knowledge of all the factors in the case to be able to judge about the case, and you're not an infallible judge, and you're not judging by some supersensible objective rules; you're judging from your own point of view, someone is judging you from their own point of view, someone is judging what you're judging from their point of view, someone is judging the whole process.. it's possible for each of the judges to reach a different conclusion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But in OBVIOUS cases it's not possible for each judge to reach a different conclusion... :-) I appreciate your argument, but it's really a finer 8and entirely theoretical!) point of philosophy, you're just being (if I may say so) slightly more pedantic than me ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
obvious is a very dangerous and misused word - I thought we'd established that there are no obvious cases; "obvious" to you, meaningless to someone else, and nothing but a minor nuisance to another... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goin' for 600!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
go thread, GO! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
YEAH YEAH YEAH UH-HU UH-HU UH-HU THREADZ IS THREADIN STEPPIN' THREADZ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
598? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all you vultures waiting in the shadows |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
600!!!!!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
