Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>>Law beats reason with a big angry stick.
Psychology is not the study of reason; logic and epistemology are philosophical pursuits. The thinking human is a gestalt of countless influences and drives: he is a moral being and he is an animal. He is rational and he is spiritual. Humanity is eminent both in the man who gives to charity and the man who beats his wife to death with a tire iron.
To deny any input, to thrust any aspect of what humanity can be and what it does aside and call it lesser or inconsequential, is unreal and inhuman. It leads to a flawed understanding of humanity and any philosophy that's derived from it is necessarily in error.
>>Do I have to be nice cause you're a GM? I can't ever tell. Don't patronize me. It makes me grumpy.
If you do not wish to receive a glib response about your work, do not make glib statements about other fields. For whatever it's worth, there is no hard feelings in my comment, simply matching tone for tone.
-Armifer
"It is no longer possible to escape men. Farewell to the monsters, farewell to the saints. Farewell to pride. All that is left is men."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
I keep saying things that I mean to say better.
By reason (I should have capitalized it) I mean the knowledge, will and ability (socially) to persue ALL matters beyond the baser instincts of run, eat, procreate.
Can we at least agree on my earlier point that psychology is a product of a decreased struggle for survival and that philosophy is necessary to decrease that struggle? It's obvious that times without the finer studies were NOT fun places to live.
I'll consent to your inclusivity. You can't have one without the other any more. You can't keep creating law to punish problems that are tenable from a psychological perspective. We have WAY too much free time on our collective hands and we're finding more and more nifty ways to kill eachother. You can punish all day long, teaching is where the real results lie.
>>To deny any input, to thrust any aspect of what humanity can be and what it does aside and call it lesser or inconsequential, is unreal and inhuman. It leads to a flawed understanding of humanity and any philosophy that's derived from it is necessarily in error.
I couldn't agree more. It was the principle behind the statement that started this discussion. That particular statement is well written, to the point and double sided. Exchange philosophy with psychology and you have my argument.
You can't find fault, psychologically in someone who truely believes, on a moral level, that leaving a baby out in the cold to die is the noble and right thing to do (poor example because it's not incorrect philosophically either.)
Philosophical morals are not genetic...they're learned whereas your physche is still based on the same principles no matter where you are, what you believe in and what you do in your day to day life. As a general rule, barring abberation, people are all wired the same, it's the software that does us in. The hardware (forgive the analogy) collects/processes information differently depending on what its software is.
If I had been born in the 50's I would stare in aghast at the skirts I wear now and proclaim myself a tramp of the lowest order, or I could be a buck naked, saggy aboriginee (mangled that one) on the other side of the world thinking how hot all those restrictive clothings would be in the noon-time sun.
Psychology: The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
You can't study processes (non-medically) if you don't understand the philosophy behind their feelings.
>>To be fair, philosophers trying to discuss personality is about as relevant as taking a philosophical approach to rocketry.
Goes a bit against inclusivity. Now granted, if I wanted to get into a persons head, I wouldn't ask Socrates (I wouldn't ask that mook anything anyways) just as you wouldn't go to a psychiatrist if you needed someone off your front lawn...but to throw that out with such conviction is...glib.(my vocabulary isn't anywhere near par, I'll shamelessly steal some of this)
>>If you do not wish to receive a glib response about your work, do not make glib statements about other fields.
All things intertwine...it's why there will never be a blanket rule of philosophy. No one thing is right in all situations.
No two people share the same philosophy, therefore the study of psychology will also never be complete.
At least that GODKIN mook stuffed a sock in it.
This is one of the best debates I've had since I got out of school. I'm a small town cop (Surprise surprise with all my LAW LAW LAW) and you generally don't get this sort of interaction with the local alcoholics at the bar.
SOBER! At work and dealing with drunks...I'm a multitasker.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
By reason (I should have capitalized it) I mean the knowledge, will and ability (socially) to persue ALL matters beyond the baser instincts of run, eat, procreate.
Can we at least agree on my earlier point that psychology is a product of a decreased struggle for survival and that philosophy is necessary to decrease that struggle? It's obvious that times without the finer studies were NOT fun places to live.
I'll consent to your inclusivity. You can't have one without the other any more. You can't keep creating law to punish problems that are tenable from a psychological perspective. We have WAY too much free time on our collective hands and we're finding more and more nifty ways to kill eachother. You can punish all day long, teaching is where the real results lie.
>>To deny any input, to thrust any aspect of what humanity can be and what it does aside and call it lesser or inconsequential, is unreal and inhuman. It leads to a flawed understanding of humanity and any philosophy that's derived from it is necessarily in error.
I couldn't agree more. It was the principle behind the statement that started this discussion. That particular statement is well written, to the point and double sided. Exchange philosophy with psychology and you have my argument.
You can't find fault, psychologically in someone who truely believes, on a moral level, that leaving a baby out in the cold to die is the noble and right thing to do (poor example because it's not incorrect philosophically either.)
Philosophical morals are not genetic...they're learned whereas your physche is still based on the same principles no matter where you are, what you believe in and what you do in your day to day life. As a general rule, barring abberation, people are all wired the same, it's the software that does us in. The hardware (forgive the analogy) collects/processes information differently depending on what its software is.
If I had been born in the 50's I would stare in aghast at the skirts I wear now and proclaim myself a tramp of the lowest order, or I could be a buck naked, saggy aboriginee (mangled that one) on the other side of the world thinking how hot all those restrictive clothings would be in the noon-time sun.
Psychology: The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
You can't study processes (non-medically) if you don't understand the philosophy behind their feelings.
>>To be fair, philosophers trying to discuss personality is about as relevant as taking a philosophical approach to rocketry.
Goes a bit against inclusivity. Now granted, if I wanted to get into a persons head, I wouldn't ask Socrates (I wouldn't ask that mook anything anyways) just as you wouldn't go to a psychiatrist if you needed someone off your front lawn...but to throw that out with such conviction is...glib.(my vocabulary isn't anywhere near par, I'll shamelessly steal some of this)
>>If you do not wish to receive a glib response about your work, do not make glib statements about other fields.
All things intertwine...it's why there will never be a blanket rule of philosophy. No one thing is right in all situations.
No two people share the same philosophy, therefore the study of psychology will also never be complete.
At least that GODKIN mook stuffed a sock in it.
This is one of the best debates I've had since I got out of school. I'm a small town cop (Surprise surprise with all my LAW LAW LAW) and you generally don't get this sort of interaction with the local alcoholics at the bar.
SOBER! At work and dealing with drunks...I'm a multitasker.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
>>Can we at least agree on my earlier point that psychology is a product of a decreased struggle for survival and that philosophy is necessary to decrease that struggle?
We search for self-knowledge and "actualization" once all other pressing needs are met. Your first point is largely correct and borne out in anthropology. You don't have dedicated priests and philosophers until you have the farming thing firmly sorted out.
The second part requires a leap I'm not prepared to make. It presumes that philosophy is more than an academic discipline and that it is some spiritual or evolutionary force; proto-humans caught philosophy and suddenly became better? It's particularly amusing to compare the two disciplines on this argument since psychology translated is "the study of the soul."
>>You can't find fault, psychologically in someone who truely believes, on a moral level, that leaving a baby out in the cold to die is the noble and right thing to do (poor example because it's not incorrect philosophically either.)
I actually can. There are behaviors and beliefs that are purely antithetical to the continued survival and growth of an individual, regardless of cultural context. We call it psychopathological and say it is wrong, and any society that harbors these things are also wrong.
This ties into...
>>All things intertwine...it's why there will never be a blanket rule of philosophy. No one thing is right in all situations.
There can be no law and no divine plan if there is no sense of objectivity to the universe and human endeavor. The post-modernists rise up and kill us all.
We can say that the human is hopelessly complex, that ethical calculus requires more variables than any single man can ever fully grasp. But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way. There's no backwards or forwards from that spot.
There is a law and there is the Good, though I think we'll all find it is not a moral concept. It can only become moral if we are willing to accept that what is human comes before what we presume humanity should be, and that our morality must bend to the needs and growth of the sum-total human, who is capable of both altruistic charity and brutal war.
>>As a general rule, barring abberation, people are all wired the same, it's the software that does us in. The hardware (forgive the analogy) collects/processes information differently depending on what its software is.
The development of your brain -- the actual squishy bits behind your eyes -- can be influenced by your social inputs. Two examples that spring immediately to mind are that orphans tend to physically develop slower than attached children and your ability to process certain sounds depends entirely on what languages you were exposed to as a child.
-Armifer
"It is no longer possible to escape men. Farewell to the monsters, farewell to the saints. Farewell to pride. All that is left is men."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
We search for self-knowledge and "actualization" once all other pressing needs are met. Your first point is largely correct and borne out in anthropology. You don't have dedicated priests and philosophers until you have the farming thing firmly sorted out.
The second part requires a leap I'm not prepared to make. It presumes that philosophy is more than an academic discipline and that it is some spiritual or evolutionary force; proto-humans caught philosophy and suddenly became better? It's particularly amusing to compare the two disciplines on this argument since psychology translated is "the study of the soul."
>>You can't find fault, psychologically in someone who truely believes, on a moral level, that leaving a baby out in the cold to die is the noble and right thing to do (poor example because it's not incorrect philosophically either.)
I actually can. There are behaviors and beliefs that are purely antithetical to the continued survival and growth of an individual, regardless of cultural context. We call it psychopathological and say it is wrong, and any society that harbors these things are also wrong.
This ties into...
>>All things intertwine...it's why there will never be a blanket rule of philosophy. No one thing is right in all situations.
There can be no law and no divine plan if there is no sense of objectivity to the universe and human endeavor. The post-modernists rise up and kill us all.
We can say that the human is hopelessly complex, that ethical calculus requires more variables than any single man can ever fully grasp. But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way. There's no backwards or forwards from that spot.
There is a law and there is the Good, though I think we'll all find it is not a moral concept. It can only become moral if we are willing to accept that what is human comes before what we presume humanity should be, and that our morality must bend to the needs and growth of the sum-total human, who is capable of both altruistic charity and brutal war.
>>As a general rule, barring abberation, people are all wired the same, it's the software that does us in. The hardware (forgive the analogy) collects/processes information differently depending on what its software is.
The development of your brain -- the actual squishy bits behind your eyes -- can be influenced by your social inputs. Two examples that spring immediately to mind are that orphans tend to physically develop slower than attached children and your ability to process certain sounds depends entirely on what languages you were exposed to as a child.
-Armifer
"It is no longer possible to escape men. Farewell to the monsters, farewell to the saints. Farewell to pride. All that is left is men."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
>>As in today ask Strange just how many folk are hunting him or Caelumia.
Strange certainly wasn't "hunted" in a way where he had to watch his back all the time. I know this because I used to always see him hunting in a area directly outside a city that he caused trouble in.
Caelumia isn't "hunted" like you mentioned, at least not from my knowledge. She has openly stated where she tends to hang out sometimes. The reasons why things are a bit different now than they used to be is because:
1. Because a lot of people really lack the stones to engage in PvP against someone they assume is stronger than them.
2. Policy is more strictly enforced than it used to be.
Vinjince
"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."
- Sima Yi
Strange certainly wasn't "hunted" in a way where he had to watch his back all the time. I know this because I used to always see him hunting in a area directly outside a city that he caused trouble in.
Caelumia isn't "hunted" like you mentioned, at least not from my knowledge. She has openly stated where she tends to hang out sometimes. The reasons why things are a bit different now than they used to be is because:
1. Because a lot of people really lack the stones to engage in PvP against someone they assume is stronger than them.
2. Policy is more strictly enforced than it used to be.
Vinjince
"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."
- Sima Yi
>>The second part requires a leap I'm not prepared to make. It presumes that philosophy is more than an academic discipline and that it is some spiritual or evolutionary force; proto-humans caught philosophy and suddenly became better?
Law is a social philosophy. Moral philosophy is nothing more than a few rules based loosely on a way of interpreting your surroundings. It translates into a social status quo when it's accepted by the majority. I don't want people to steal from therefore I would like this to be against the rules. Thag obviously didn't sit around pondering what makes a man moral, but he knew what he didn't like. So yes, proto-humans did become better with the advent of a social philosophy, but it was out of necessity and thus we don't/shouldn't consider it an academic persuit so much as a tool for survival.
>>I actually can. There are behaviors and beliefs that are purely antithetical to the continued survival and growth of an individual, regardless of cultural context.
While I agree that it might be detrimental in a lesser level, simply for the inherit attachment we have to our offspring, Eskimo practiced this method of social survival not 5 decades past. They aren't baby stabbing sociopaths who get their giggles from torturing animals, they just couldn't afford too many non-hunters. They may have squirted a few tears, but it's not anywhere on the level of what you or I might do should we lose our offspring for any reason, let alone our own choice.
Their method of survival isn't antithetical in the least. It's just brutal born of a brutal life. Now while I can't debate from the individuals perspective other than to say if the tribe dies he dies...the social acceptance of this philosophy is present.
>>But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way.
I agree, but as far as the academics are concerned there is no blanket theory other then to, forgive the term, run to the unexplainable like a good christian. There is a theory called something like Universal Ethics, which is the catch all. Every single tiny situation is it's own moral world which no outside judge can dictate right and wrong within. An individual has the supreme power to choose his path in this world and if society does not agree with or tolerate his path, from an outside and thus flawed perspective, it will punish accordingly. In essence it says, "Do what lets you look in the mirror."
>> It can only become moral if we are willing to accept that what is human comes before what we presume humanity should be, and that our morality must bend to the needs and growth of the sum-total human, who is capable of both altruistic charity and brutal war.
There is no way to seperate the individual from the group. We are a social being. We literally go insane, (though who's to know if no one is around) without contact. Charity is a singular choice that effects society, war is a social revolt against another philosophy. You can't define a man as singular. There's no right, no wrong. There's only him. Even the environment he dwells in plays a part in his process and that's to say nothing of his peers. We are a race of averages. It's our greatest strength and cruelest side. What the GROUP believes, becomes. We can believe we're free and revolt against England, or we can believe Jew's should be exterminated and set up death camps. Later when the larger, stronger group believes that we shouldn't be performing genocide they'll destroy that philosophy by force if necessary. This segways into my might makes right spiel and that makes EVERYONE angry...but it's the best example I got.
All that is right and all that is wrong is determined by context, both socially and for the individual though the two rarely meet and shake hands. What is right for the individual is rarely right as far as society is concerned. Right and wrong is not a holy grail you can just find and give to the world.
>>The development of your brain -- the actual squishy bits behind your eyes -- can be influenced by your social inputs.
I didn't have any clue that took place. It doesn't change the basic gist though. My point, without the mistaken emphasis on hard/software, was that you LEARN philosophy while the basic reactions of what people think are right and wrong are the same. Babies smile, people in (insert third world craphole here) celebrate when they wipe out an entire, opposing village. Something traumatic is defined by your socio-philosophic upbringing, how you deal with it is your psyche.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
Law is a social philosophy. Moral philosophy is nothing more than a few rules based loosely on a way of interpreting your surroundings. It translates into a social status quo when it's accepted by the majority. I don't want people to steal from therefore I would like this to be against the rules. Thag obviously didn't sit around pondering what makes a man moral, but he knew what he didn't like. So yes, proto-humans did become better with the advent of a social philosophy, but it was out of necessity and thus we don't/shouldn't consider it an academic persuit so much as a tool for survival.
>>I actually can. There are behaviors and beliefs that are purely antithetical to the continued survival and growth of an individual, regardless of cultural context.
While I agree that it might be detrimental in a lesser level, simply for the inherit attachment we have to our offspring, Eskimo practiced this method of social survival not 5 decades past. They aren't baby stabbing sociopaths who get their giggles from torturing animals, they just couldn't afford too many non-hunters. They may have squirted a few tears, but it's not anywhere on the level of what you or I might do should we lose our offspring for any reason, let alone our own choice.
Their method of survival isn't antithetical in the least. It's just brutal born of a brutal life. Now while I can't debate from the individuals perspective other than to say if the tribe dies he dies...the social acceptance of this philosophy is present.
>>But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way.
I agree, but as far as the academics are concerned there is no blanket theory other then to, forgive the term, run to the unexplainable like a good christian. There is a theory called something like Universal Ethics, which is the catch all. Every single tiny situation is it's own moral world which no outside judge can dictate right and wrong within. An individual has the supreme power to choose his path in this world and if society does not agree with or tolerate his path, from an outside and thus flawed perspective, it will punish accordingly. In essence it says, "Do what lets you look in the mirror."
>> It can only become moral if we are willing to accept that what is human comes before what we presume humanity should be, and that our morality must bend to the needs and growth of the sum-total human, who is capable of both altruistic charity and brutal war.
There is no way to seperate the individual from the group. We are a social being. We literally go insane, (though who's to know if no one is around) without contact. Charity is a singular choice that effects society, war is a social revolt against another philosophy. You can't define a man as singular. There's no right, no wrong. There's only him. Even the environment he dwells in plays a part in his process and that's to say nothing of his peers. We are a race of averages. It's our greatest strength and cruelest side. What the GROUP believes, becomes. We can believe we're free and revolt against England, or we can believe Jew's should be exterminated and set up death camps. Later when the larger, stronger group believes that we shouldn't be performing genocide they'll destroy that philosophy by force if necessary. This segways into my might makes right spiel and that makes EVERYONE angry...but it's the best example I got.
All that is right and all that is wrong is determined by context, both socially and for the individual though the two rarely meet and shake hands. What is right for the individual is rarely right as far as society is concerned. Right and wrong is not a holy grail you can just find and give to the world.
>>The development of your brain -- the actual squishy bits behind your eyes -- can be influenced by your social inputs.
I didn't have any clue that took place. It doesn't change the basic gist though. My point, without the mistaken emphasis on hard/software, was that you LEARN philosophy while the basic reactions of what people think are right and wrong are the same. Babies smile, people in (insert third world craphole here) celebrate when they wipe out an entire, opposing village. Something traumatic is defined by your socio-philosophic upbringing, how you deal with it is your psyche.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o28Cv63EtMI&feature=related
Best song on the planet to argue to. at 4:15 he gets the look on his face like, "You're all VERY impressed."
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
Best song on the planet to argue to. at 4:15 he gets the look on his face like, "You're all VERY impressed."
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
"Just posting my two cents about this, but unless you're intimately familiar with the circumstances IMHO it's really none of your business. I've killed Clerics and Empaths for attacking me or casting on me and trying to prevent me from exercising consent on some ass before."
As a cleric, I really don't care about whether you were exercising consent or not- you just wasted my time. I probably wouldn't try to kill you- frankly every single time someone has killed someone as I fall down to the ground from resurrecting them they run in, cast, kill, run out. That is the grand RP involved. Ton's of fun for the rest of us. I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to chase anyone down.
But it would leave a sour taste in my mouth and you could pretty much be assured that I would not help your character until I forgot about it, and whine about your style to every other cleric who hangs out in the same area. Of course that might motivate other clerics to assist you.
I think the original question was whether it was considered rude or not to kill someone as they were being helped. I can pretty much assure you that it would be considered rude to the empath or cleric. But typically in that situation, no one much cares what empaths or clerics think anyway. So would you consider it to be rude? Do you care if you offend the empaths or clerics? If not, don't sweat it.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
Holy interesting sidetrack batman.
<<There can be no law and no divine plan if there is no sense of objectivity to the universe and human endeavor. The post-modernists rise up and kill us all.>>
<<We can say that the human is hopelessly complex, that ethical calculus requires more variables than any single man can ever fully grasp. But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way. There's no backwards or forwards from that spot.>>
QFT. The problem is once the post-modernists are put down, the rejection of nihilism necessarily requires a substitute, doesn't it? And from there, some value-set must be endorsed, so the question is--Does philosophy dictate the direction of behavior, or does philosophy evolve as a product intended to forward efficient and productive biological human existence? If there must be a Truth, is it a Truth based upon some kind of utilitarian, biologically-determined, unconscious instinct; or is Truth something that transcends and actually shifts "proto-human" behavior?
<<This segways into my might makes right spiel and that makes EVERYONE angry...but it's the best example I got.>>
Might may make right, but the real question behind that is whether there is a reason for the domination of a certain philosophy within the "might." If one value-set happens to correlate to a more sustainable, "powerful" civilization, does that validate the philosophy? As philosophical Darwinism goes, is Truth defined by the value-set that allows civilization to exist peacefully and in sustainable balance with the surroundings? Or is there some kind of academic Truth, philosophy, that can be rationally deduced, and incorporated, to lead civilization to the end-game?
<<So yes, proto-humans did become better with the advent of a social philosophy>>
I feel like this works backwards, and it was the betterment of proto-humans that allowed the luxury of more complex social organizational rules--philosophy. I'm not sure the distinction between Law and Good is really so clear.
PS--I thought Frogspawn was pretty funny.
<<There can be no law and no divine plan if there is no sense of objectivity to the universe and human endeavor. The post-modernists rise up and kill us all.>>
<<We can say that the human is hopelessly complex, that ethical calculus requires more variables than any single man can ever fully grasp. But the moment we say that there is no measure for humanity -- when we say and truly mean we cannot judge another person -- we've lost our way. There's no backwards or forwards from that spot.>>
QFT. The problem is once the post-modernists are put down, the rejection of nihilism necessarily requires a substitute, doesn't it? And from there, some value-set must be endorsed, so the question is--Does philosophy dictate the direction of behavior, or does philosophy evolve as a product intended to forward efficient and productive biological human existence? If there must be a Truth, is it a Truth based upon some kind of utilitarian, biologically-determined, unconscious instinct; or is Truth something that transcends and actually shifts "proto-human" behavior?
<<This segways into my might makes right spiel and that makes EVERYONE angry...but it's the best example I got.>>
Might may make right, but the real question behind that is whether there is a reason for the domination of a certain philosophy within the "might." If one value-set happens to correlate to a more sustainable, "powerful" civilization, does that validate the philosophy? As philosophical Darwinism goes, is Truth defined by the value-set that allows civilization to exist peacefully and in sustainable balance with the surroundings? Or is there some kind of academic Truth, philosophy, that can be rationally deduced, and incorporated, to lead civilization to the end-game?
<<So yes, proto-humans did become better with the advent of a social philosophy>>
I feel like this works backwards, and it was the betterment of proto-humans that allowed the luxury of more complex social organizational rules--philosophy. I'm not sure the distinction between Law and Good is really so clear.
PS--I thought Frogspawn was pretty funny.
>>QFT.
Be nice or close your holster. You got some decent points but discussion is open to all, not just people you agree with...save that stuff for your clan meetings.
>>Does philosophy dictate the direction of behavior, or does philosophy evolve as a product intended to forward efficient and productive biological human existence? If there must be a Truth, is it a Truth based upon some kind of utilitarian, biologically-determined, unconscious instinct; or is Truth something that transcends and actually shifts "proto-human" behavior?
It's the beginning and the end. It's a necessity and it's frippery. Laws against stealing would be a beginning, Marxism would be a frippery. The persuit of it is entirely a luxery. Necessity doesn't care if you figure it out or not. You either do or you die. There's no answer to that question other than to say...both?
>>Might may make right, but the real question behind that is whether there is a reason for the domination of a certain philosophy within the "might." If one value-set happens to correlate to a more sustainable, "powerful" civilization, does that validate the philosophy? As philosophical Darwinism goes, is Truth defined by the value-set that allows civilization to exist peacefully and in sustainable balance with the surroundings? Or is there some kind of academic Truth, philosophy, that can be rationally deduced, and incorporated, to lead civilization to the end-game?
Why would our perception of it matter? I'd hazard to say that it's existence is more than enough. IF a philosophy were to yield, on its own, a standard that allowed society to interact, dominate and continue without abatement then yes, that would be considered a validation. The problem with all of society is that it's usually government regulated, and government is notoriously inflexible...in a high political wind it snaps. Philosophy changes fast...refer to my 50's skirt wearing aboriginee comment. When you can keep everyone happy all the time then you've won...it's just impossible.
>>I feel like this works backwards, and it was the betterment of proto-humans that allowed the luxury of more complex social organizational rules--philosophy. I'm not sure the distinction between Law and Good is really so clear.
HOW did they get better? Any social interaction that you have with another human being is regulated by the philosophy you both subscribe to. You can't walk up to me and get a handful without consequence because it's not in the deck. There's no way, even if they don't realize it, to interact without rules. You can't better your condition without society. It's a chicken before the farmer debate. Can't have a farmer without the chicken.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
Be nice or close your holster. You got some decent points but discussion is open to all, not just people you agree with...save that stuff for your clan meetings.
>>Does philosophy dictate the direction of behavior, or does philosophy evolve as a product intended to forward efficient and productive biological human existence? If there must be a Truth, is it a Truth based upon some kind of utilitarian, biologically-determined, unconscious instinct; or is Truth something that transcends and actually shifts "proto-human" behavior?
It's the beginning and the end. It's a necessity and it's frippery. Laws against stealing would be a beginning, Marxism would be a frippery. The persuit of it is entirely a luxery. Necessity doesn't care if you figure it out or not. You either do or you die. There's no answer to that question other than to say...both?
>>Might may make right, but the real question behind that is whether there is a reason for the domination of a certain philosophy within the "might." If one value-set happens to correlate to a more sustainable, "powerful" civilization, does that validate the philosophy? As philosophical Darwinism goes, is Truth defined by the value-set that allows civilization to exist peacefully and in sustainable balance with the surroundings? Or is there some kind of academic Truth, philosophy, that can be rationally deduced, and incorporated, to lead civilization to the end-game?
Why would our perception of it matter? I'd hazard to say that it's existence is more than enough. IF a philosophy were to yield, on its own, a standard that allowed society to interact, dominate and continue without abatement then yes, that would be considered a validation. The problem with all of society is that it's usually government regulated, and government is notoriously inflexible...in a high political wind it snaps. Philosophy changes fast...refer to my 50's skirt wearing aboriginee comment. When you can keep everyone happy all the time then you've won...it's just impossible.
>>I feel like this works backwards, and it was the betterment of proto-humans that allowed the luxury of more complex social organizational rules--philosophy. I'm not sure the distinction between Law and Good is really so clear.
HOW did they get better? Any social interaction that you have with another human being is regulated by the philosophy you both subscribe to. You can't walk up to me and get a handful without consequence because it's not in the deck. There's no way, even if they don't realize it, to interact without rules. You can't better your condition without society. It's a chicken before the farmer debate. Can't have a farmer without the chicken.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I forgot to mention this...
It's SO possible (pronounced poh-see-blay) to be intelligent AND intelligible. (woo! 4 clap and a 5 clap!). I can't handle looking up all these big words, take it easy on me.
DRUNK! I soooo love merlot (pronounced Mur-loht!).
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
It's SO possible (pronounced poh-see-blay) to be intelligent AND intelligible. (woo! 4 clap and a 5 clap!). I can't handle looking up all these big words, take it easy on me.
DRUNK! I soooo love merlot (pronounced Mur-loht!).
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
>Are you even reading the posts?
Why would I do that? Next semester you will have different books and different opinions which you can claim as "truth" while still avoiding your sobriety issues for any length of time.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
Why would I do that? Next semester you will have different books and different opinions which you can claim as "truth" while still avoiding your sobriety issues for any length of time.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
>Be nice or close your holster. You got some decent points but discussion is open to all, not just people you agree with...save that stuff for your clan meetings.
Now that is some sweet irony of the self righteous variety.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
Now that is some sweet irony of the self righteous variety.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
While I don't agree with some stances, I don't belittle them pointlessly...unless they get gestapo on me. As far as changing my opinions...yes, I do and quite frequently. Every SINGLE SOLITARY time I find something I'm wrong about I change my friggin' opinion, even when it stings. If you just go with what you've been taught/comfortable with, you mine as well join a book burning club.
I'm a closet alcoholic...but only cause nobody seems to notice/care. I'd be out in the open, but your average joe isn't that perceptive. I really can't figure out how all you people deal with your problems without alcohol.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I'm a closet alcoholic...but only cause nobody seems to notice/care. I'd be out in the open, but your average joe isn't that perceptive. I really can't figure out how all you people deal with your problems without alcohol.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I'm so happy someone gave you back your "I can talk!" button. You've contributed SO much I can't WAIT to hear what you have to say next, GODKIN.
Fourth + Fifth post summary:
-I are smart too!
For real...I seriously hope you roleplay someone COMPLETELY different from yourself. You're probably looking at the short trip to the starry otherwise. Contribute...or you know...shut your flamming hotdog gobbler.
DRUNK! An despite societal efforts, unashamed.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
Fourth + Fifth post summary:
-I are smart too!
For real...I seriously hope you roleplay someone COMPLETELY different from yourself. You're probably looking at the short trip to the starry otherwise. Contribute...or you know...shut your flamming hotdog gobbler.
DRUNK! An despite societal efforts, unashamed.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I wish I could lock threads.
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n142/Sirzason/wmsheet2.jpg
a black panther comes flying into view! it hits the ground, bouncing once before sliding to a stop.
A black panther is stunned!
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n142/Sirzason/wmsheet2.jpg
a black panther comes flying into view! it hits the ground, bouncing once before sliding to a stop.
A black panther is stunned!
>>I wish I could lock threads.
I'm a computer dunce, so you'll have to explain.
LOVE the cheat sheet by the by. I keep desktop dueling with my husband for the coveted background position...he's a big fan of the Cowboy cheerleaders. I should just memorize that stuff, but I'm lazy.
DRUNK! With a headache though. Water and aspirin time.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I'm a computer dunce, so you'll have to explain.
LOVE the cheat sheet by the by. I keep desktop dueling with my husband for the coveted background position...he's a big fan of the Cowboy cheerleaders. I should just memorize that stuff, but I'm lazy.
DRUNK! With a headache though. Water and aspirin time.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
<<Thag obviously didn't sit around pondering what makes a man moral, but he knew what he didn't like. >>
If Thag is making the rules he is Hegel's First Man. Doesn't matter if those he has conquered / enslaved agree with his rules unless they are willing to take up arms against him. Locke certainly wasn't advocating his ideals of government 13,000 years ago in Mesopotamia or anywhere else for that matter.
Sorsein
Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell,
And in the lowest deep a lower deep,
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide,
To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven. -Milton
If Thag is making the rules he is Hegel's First Man. Doesn't matter if those he has conquered / enslaved agree with his rules unless they are willing to take up arms against him. Locke certainly wasn't advocating his ideals of government 13,000 years ago in Mesopotamia or anywhere else for that matter.
Sorsein
Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell,
And in the lowest deep a lower deep,
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide,
To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven. -Milton
>I'm a closet alcoholic...but only cause nobody seems to notice/care. I'd be out in the open, but your average joe isn't that perceptive. I really can't figure out how all you people deal with your problems without alcohol.
We laugh at those who do, since laughter is the best medicine.
>For real...I seriously hope you roleplay someone COMPLETELY different from yourself. You're probably looking at the short trip to the starry otherwise.
LOL. The drunken pseudo-philosopher resorts to idle threats, to back up his earlier statements of courtesy and anonymity on the internet. Bravo sir, Bravo.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
We laugh at those who do, since laughter is the best medicine.
>For real...I seriously hope you roleplay someone COMPLETELY different from yourself. You're probably looking at the short trip to the starry otherwise.
LOL. The drunken pseudo-philosopher resorts to idle threats, to back up his earlier statements of courtesy and anonymity on the internet. Bravo sir, Bravo.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
>>If Thag is making the rules he is Hegel's First Man. Doesn't matter if those he has conquered / enslaved agree with his rules unless they are willing to take up arms against him. Locke certainly wasn't advocating his ideals of government 13,000 years ago in Mesopotamia or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm not sure what you were refuting with that.
GODKIN 6th post summary:
-I'm not touching you! (holds finger close to my nose)
I'm not threatening you, I don't even know who you play in game. I was simply (for your benefit)stating that in a place with consequences you'd probably get snuffed.
I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. I'm not gaining anything from it, but feel free to post. People of your caliber SHOULD announce themselves. Saves the rest of the trouble of getting to know you and THEN disliking you.
SOBER! No hangover...don't know how that happened.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
I'm not sure what you were refuting with that.
GODKIN 6th post summary:
-I'm not touching you! (holds finger close to my nose)
I'm not threatening you, I don't even know who you play in game. I was simply (for your benefit)stating that in a place with consequences you'd probably get snuffed.
I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. I'm not gaining anything from it, but feel free to post. People of your caliber SHOULD announce themselves. Saves the rest of the trouble of getting to know you and THEN disliking you.
SOBER! No hangover...don't know how that happened.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
>I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. I'm not gaining anything from it, but feel free to post. People of your caliber SHOULD announce themselves. Saves the rest of the trouble of getting to know you and THEN disliking you.
I guess you should try harder to maintain your sobriety so as not to start whiny discussions in a conflict folder. One would think a registered genius would take note of such things.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
I guess you should try harder to maintain your sobriety so as not to start whiny discussions in a conflict folder. One would think a registered genius would take note of such things.
Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!
Ok, folks. This one's wandered far enough afield. Either keep to the original topic, or please start a new thread or threads in the appropriate folders. Thanks.
Please email any questions to me (MOD-Lirionic@play.net), Senior Board Monitor Annwyl (DR-Annwyl@play.net), or Board Supervisor Cecco (DR-Cecco@play.net). Thank you.
-Lirionic
Please email any questions to me (MOD-Lirionic@play.net), Senior Board Monitor Annwyl (DR-Annwyl@play.net), or Board Supervisor Cecco (DR-Cecco@play.net). Thank you.
-Lirionic
I know I said I wasn't going to respond to you again...but I didn't realize you were someone I actually knew in game.
Are you still mad? That's so CUTE.
Why not, instead of posting like a annonymous coward, you just create a "Redeth" discussion and post how I know you/what you don't like. I'll even start it for you if you're too shy.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
Are you still mad? That's so CUTE.
Why not, instead of posting like a annonymous coward, you just create a "Redeth" discussion and post how I know you/what you don't like. I'll even start it for you if you're too shy.
You hear the ghostly voice of Redeth say, "That plan worked better in my head."
