Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Zygimantas]

Corruption is a result of human nature, not of a specific system of government.

Yes. So human nature must change first, and then maybe we will have a corrupt free "government" or whatever we will decide to have.

[Alg]

Corruption is a result of human nature, not of a specific system of government.

Yes. So human nature must change first, and then maybe we will have a corrupt free "government" or whatever we will decide to have.

Until then we just have to try minimizing the effects of corruption.

[muggiwhplar]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

 

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

[Dupin]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

#-o

I have been bombarded with these same responses ever since I had my own thread on this topic

 

Short answer is no, the government isnt the sole force that solves these problems and a society can figure these out without a government doing so.

 

Im not going into specifics at this moment as I litterally expained this on every page of my old thread

 

Monopolies do not naturally form, either its a force - of a state - saying you are granted sole right to produce this, or in the case of a cartel where they aim to kill their competition.

 

However on a true free market in a geographical monopoly it would cost an astronomical price to buyout every one of your competitors to have that monopoly. With a technological monopoly it costs a lot of money to produce a product that would be extremely difficult for a competitor to reproduce and make their own copycat product to put on the market. With any monopoly I am saying it takes astronomical sums of money to make it one, and even more to drive out the inevitable competitors that will spring up.

I will visit your thread at some point to see the long version of your argument on "litterally" every page. I have tended to avoid it because the videos turned me off. I understand if they express your point better, but I don't have hours to waste on some monologue, especially when I would have to turn off my music.

 

First of all, who's to say corporations will not form a "cartel where they aim to kill their competition"?

 

Large corporations can mass-produce their products, allowing them to sell these products at a lower price. If price is the only significant factor, competition is eliminated because small businesses cannot compete. Therefore, large corporations dominate free-market economies because they can undercut their competitors.

 

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

 

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

The argument is valid if supported by a chain of logical events. To simplify it, the possibility that a corporation could easily take control of the economy makes a free market dangerous.

 

Ring World, perhaps if you have been recieving the same argument repetitively, your reasoning is incorrect. Is Mexico not a good enough example of the results of anarchy?

[Skull]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

The problem with this is that you put a condition into place that allows this to occur in the beginning and then ignore it later on. The same thing that happens to the product in the beginning will, in fact, happen to the product and rises up to take its place later on. What would really happen is that it would cycle, with one product overtaking the other, a new one appearing and then overtaking the previous leader. Unless the other corporation is capable of preventing anyone else from making a competing product, they will eventually be forced to lower their prices, bring up the quality, or go out of business.

 

Of course that's only applicable to your scenario, real life is too complex for such a simple statement.

[Dupin]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

The problem with this is that you put a condition into place that allows this to occur in the beginning and then ignore it later on. The same thing that happens to the product in the beginning will, in fact, happen to the product and rises up to take its place later on. What would really happen is that it would cycle, with one product overtaking the other, a new one appearing and then overtaking the previous leader. Unless the other corporation is capable of preventing anyone else from making a competing product, they will eventually be forced to lower their prices, bring up the quality, or go out of business.

 

Of course that's only applicable to your scenario, real life is too complex for such a simple statement.

Fair enough, but they can still control the economy by keeping the prices low. New businesses cannot compete with large corporations.

[Zygimantas]

What if we did not put any value on things? ( Objects, emotions, etc.)

[Alg]

What if we did not put any value on things? ( Objects, emotions, etc.)

We do that because some things are more desirable than others, whether by usefulness, comfort, or luxury (A gun vs. A sharpened stick, happiness vs. sadness, well-maintained sportscar vs. beat up SUV, and so on)

[Zygimantas]

What if we did not put any value on things? ( Objects, emotions, etc.)

We do that because some things are more desirable than others, whether by usefulness, comfort, or luxury (A gun vs. A sharpened stick, happiness vs. sadness, well-maintained sportscar vs. beat up SUV, and so on)

Now all that criteria for usefulness and what someone desires is devised by the person's mind. Take the mind out of the equation. What criteria is there now?

[Alg]

Now all that criteria for usefulness and what someone desires is devised by the person's mind. Take the mind out of the equation. What criteria is there now?

Usefulness? Not so much. Usefulness would be the difference between fighting the bear that's between you and your food with a gun or with a knife, the difference between lighting a fire with wood and flint or with a wool sock. It's what you need based on the situation, all our mind does is say "Yeah, that'll do".

Comfort? Your body is at its best when all its needs are met, and I'm pretty sure comfort is one of them. If you're busy thinking about the rock in your shoe you aren't completely focused on whatever it is you're doing

Same with emotion. Those are pretty much the mind giving us a status update. You're happy because something went well, and that happiness makes you feel good, encouraging you to continue succeeding (Probably). With sadness, you're sad because it didn't go well, and feeling bad is your mind's way of saying "Let's not do that again". Kind of like pain being the body's way of saying something's wrong.

 

Of course, we do have minds though. Our bodies are pretty much just vessels for our minds. It controls our bodies, telling them to do things that preserve it, and rewards us when we do well. Hence, emotion and feeling.

 

I've never understood the need to distance arguments from the human factor. We do that with science because the human factor leads to errors, but we can't really do that when talking about philosophies because they are a result of the human factor. Take the human factor out of philosophy and what do you have? Not a lot. Nothing practical or usable at any rate. Look at any political system. On paper it's perfect. Once you add in actual people... Not so much, whether it's democracy, communism, socialism, monarchies, or statelessness.

 

Is it maybe an obsession with making everything as 'scientific' as possible?

[Zygimantas]

 

People are emotional animals, such as if I told you I refuse to eat, you would probably say but if you dont eat you will feel hunger and will eventually die.

 

However logically there is no conclusive reason for why living is better then dying other then the fact that people emotionally desire to live, thus objects like food and water have value.

 

Human nature in a capitalists opinion is that people will do things that make them feel good and aim to positively impact themselves. More money means I can eat more therefor I will work so I could be able to eat so to speak as there is an incentive to do so.

 

For someone to absolutely value nothing they would have no desire to do anything including live. My answer on What if we did not put value on things, I would say we would die.

 

 

But see if you told me that you refused to eat, I will tell you that your body will die. Not you, just your body and mind. I feel that there is this sense of nothingness beyond the body and mind. This nothingness, empty space, it can not be harmed because it is only aware of the human mind, it does not label it. We all have this nothingness, the whole universe is composed of it, one can even argue that the universe came from it. Atoms themselves are mostly empty space. I believe that if we could look beyond fundamental particles, we will see that the most fundamental is nothingness, something like the quantum universe. This empty space is who we truly are, all the mind and body is is emptiness in a form. This form forms ideas and values that have no substance in them. Take away the observer, the mind, and there is nothing there. How can anything then have any true value? We don't die, I don't, and you don't die. Only our minds and bodies do, the nothingness just takes another form.

[Zygimantas]

 

People are emotional animals, such as if I told you I refuse to eat, you would probably say but if you dont eat you will feel hunger and will eventually die.

 

However logically there is no conclusive reason for why living is better then dying other then the fact that people emotionally desire to live, thus objects like food and water have value.

 

Human nature in a capitalists opinion is that people will do things that make them feel good and aim to positively impact themselves. More money means I can eat more therefor I will work so I could be able to eat so to speak as there is an incentive to do so.

 

For someone to absolutely value nothing they would have no desire to do anything including live. My answer on What if we did not put value on things, I would say we would die.

 

 

But see if you told me that you refused to eat, I will tell you that your body will die. Not you, just your body and mind. I feel that there is this sense of nothingness beyond the body and mind. This nothingness, empty space, it can not be harmed because it is only aware of the human mind, it does not label it. We all have this nothingness, the whole universe is composed of it, one can even argue that the universe came from it. Atoms themselves are mostly empty space. I believe that if we could look beyond fundamental particles, we will see that the most fundamental is nothingness, something like the quantum universe. This empty space is who we truly are, all the mind and body is is emptiness in a form. This form forms ideas and values that have no substance in them. Take away the observer, the mind, and there is nothing there. How can anything then have any true value? We don't die, I don't, and you don't die. Only our minds and bodies do, the nothingness just takes another form.

 

Im confused about the three selves in your example, you say, "you dont die" but your mind, and your body does.

 

The you that I think you are referring to is probably the soul. In my own personal belief I think the thing people traditionally call a soul is your consciousness, and by all accounts that goes away with death. The consciousness (soul) is in my opinion a lot like the operating system of a computer, and the mind is the software in the background and the body is hardware in there.

 

Why I make this comparison is your consciousness is a lot like the operating system of a computer in that it is your higher mind noticing all the information around it and putting it together (even though the software in the back is responsible, your consciousness is the part you are aware of much like the OS of a computer).

 

And like a computer I believe your consciousness is the result of chemical reactions in your brain - not a self or soul. I have no reason to believe that there is any sense of self after death.

 

With that being said I suppose I cannot prove that our consciousness or soul is not found in the empty spaces between our atoms however I probably wont give it too much credit unless some evidence can be found to support this. But you would be right to say that true value is only an illusion, does your fame, your wealth, anything, truly matter to you when you die? Since I think that when I die all sense of self dies too (not transfered to a heaven or hell or by nothingness to a new form) I would agree all achievements or failures are truly worthless.

 

So to the original question, I still think people value things because it gives them life and happiness, as pointless as it is the grand scheme of things.

Like you stated, I am referring to this abstract consciousness. But I just don't think it is formed by the mind, even though the mind can be aware of it. The consciousness is nothing in itself, what is beyond chemical reactions and atoms and all that. It is just nothing, and it takes different forms. It is in everything within the universe. If you die, your idea of consciousness will die with the brain, but the consciousness itself will just take another form. It is like matter, you can not create or destroy it. You have no date of birth, you were always there, just taking another form. When people say "you", or "I" they are referring to their minds and bodies. But in reality we are all the same, we are all just nothingness. We are all one.

When one becomes fully aware that true value is just an illusion, instead of just saying it and understanding it they might actually feel it. I look at sadness and happiness and realize that yes, they are true feelings and concepts inside of the mind, but outside of the mind they are nothing. This way nothing can really trouble you. You know that you are just being aware of these feelings, and they are not true.

[Zygimantas]

Ah, well the discussion ends here then :P

[Zygimantas]

Do you think that reality only exists within the mind? If so, then what do you think is real outside of the mind? If not, then please explain why.

[Guest Rob]

Define being real, and existence.

[Zygimantas]

Define being real, and existence.

Existence- Something that is;being of something. (EX: Most people think that a unicorn exists only in imagination.)

Real- Something that is there; it actually exists, rather then just the illusion of it. (EX: People say that emotions are real because we feel them)

[Saru Inc]

I'm currently writing my philosophy essays as we speak. One of them wants me to explain the evolution of epistemology, and the key figures in it.

 

 

 

Let's just say I'm really bored of the post modernists that float around the external reality that my brain perceives.

[Zygimantas]

Unless we live in the matrix then you have to assume that reality is not relative to ones perception, but rather ones perception comes from looking at reality.

Well, say I die, then there is no more perceptions in the brain and nothing is left. So therefore, without the brain there is nothing, and reality is just perception.

 

Basically, true reality is not and can not be perceived.

[Saru Inc]

Took my philosophy final today for Philosophy 101

 

 

Essay question:

 

 

 

What basically was the epistemological position of the early modern period as represented by Descartes and Locke? How was this position critiqued first by Kant and later by post modernist thinkers?

 

[hide=Essay I wrote for Extra Credit (Same Question)]Descartes and Locke were the proponents of the epistemological idea of epistemological objectivism, which stated that stated that there is a world outside of our mind, and we can know reality as it is. Kant argues this in that he states we can never know the world as it is, and he does this by dividing it into the two realities that are, the phenomenal and noumenal. Postmodernists extrapolate this by stating that unlike Descartes and Locke, who said we could know reality as it is, postmodern thinking states we cannot know reality in entirety, because we are part of it, and cannot objectively view it.

 

 

Descartes and Locke, while they both varied a bit in their ideology both believed that both the world and the world as perceived by the mind were fundamentally real. Descartes stated this, due to his belief that a perfect being created the current reality that is, and since he is not perfect himself, he must trust the senses that this perfect being has given him, to interpret the world that the perfect being created. Locke agreed in the regards that there was a reality outside of his mind, but also duly noted not all objects are the same. He stated that there were primary qualities of this reality that were unwavering identity, such as mass, form, and motion. He also stated that there were secondary qualities, which only exist in mind, as our perceptions of them differ from person to person, such as color, sound, and taste. However, this brings an issue to the table if one tries to say Locke and Descartes believed the same theorem, because Descartes completely trusted his senses, while Locke was open to believe not all senses were the same to everyone sentient being, and thus the reality, while it still existed, was not the same reality to each person.

 

 

It could be said, that when Locke is compared to Descartes, he would be defined as more radical than his counterpart. On the other hand, he wasn’t as radical as a philosopher who would come along at a later date, named Emmanuel Kant. He declared that while Descartes and Locke were mostly correct in their deductions that there was a reality both inside the mind, and outside of it. Kant stated that the all encompassing, both internal and external reality, was split into the noumenal, and the phenomenal. The noumenal reality is the external world, which we can’t really know, because it is merely a perception of our human mind, but it was still a valid reality at the same time. The phenomenal reality is a part of the external world as well, but it is involved with the internal realm of the mind in that the reason the phenomenal reality is real is because of how it is interpreted by the mind. So things that can be measured, such as space, time, cause and effect, are all part of the phenomenal reality, because while they are still perceived by the brain like anything else, they are much more concrete and unmoving.

 

 

A bit later on, after the world wars, the world, or let’s say our external reality, was inundated with the idea of postmodernism. While the recent figures in epistemology previously said we could know the reality our brain perceived was real, the post modernists stated we could not know it is real at all. They state this because they say we would have to be outside of our reality, and be able to view it objectively, to be able to conclude that it is in fact real. And since we cannot separate ourselves from this reality, then we are unable to view it objectively and without its effects on us; thus we cannot define it as real.

 

 

Epistemology has taken quite the progressive turn in the past few centuries, Descartes and Locke both stated that both the external and internal realities were deemed to be real, even if we can’t know the entirety of it. Kant debated those ideas, with the fact that if something is perceived, then we cannot be sure of it in its true form, and thus cannot use it to conclude the validity of reality. However, when you boil it down, he still believed, like Descartes and Locke, that the reality was still fundamentally real. Conversely, lately post modern thinkers have concluded in a much more scientific fashion, that as with science, we must be able to observe it from outside its effects to know of its validity. And since we cannot separate ourselves from this reality, we cannot state it is in fact real.[/hide]

 

 

Not the best it could be, in fact it was kinda crappy. But the one I wrote was for extra credit, so the one I wrote in class was like 20 times better. He read it when I turned it in and said "spot on"

 

So.... yay.

 

Funny tidbit, first question of the test was:

1) List and understand the three criteria that must be met if you are to say that you know that you know something.

 

 

 

I didn't know the answer.

 

SO it could be said, I didn't know what I needed to know in order to know what it means to know something. :XD:

 

We're allowed 3 omits a test, so I used one on that, and then one on some lame ass [cabbage] about the Teleological Argument for God and Panexperitmentalism. Forget that crap.

[Zygimantas]

Unless we live in the matrix then you have to assume that reality is not relative to ones perception, but rather ones perception comes from looking at reality.

Well, say I die, then there is no more perceptions in the brain and nothing is left. So therefore, without the brain there is nothing, and reality is just perception.

 

Basically, true reality is not and can not be perceived.

 

Well is everyone else a figment of your imagination then? Or is their perceptions real as well?

Not exactly. What I'm trying to say is that yes, there is matter out in the universe, but that matter is really just nothing. The sun is there, but it is human perception that makes it hot, big, bright and round. As soon as the mind labels something it becomes untrue. When you look at a black book it is only black because your mind is there to perceive the light waves emitted from it. There is nothing behind those light waves, only our minds perceive it as something. Basically it is as if your mind perceives everything around you and puts you in a dream state where you think that everything you perceive is real, but then sometimes you can wake up and see that none of it is real and it is the mind that is creating all of those illusions. Then you can go back to your dream knowing that nothing can harm you because it is just a dream.

[Zygimantas]

Unless we live in the matrix then you have to assume that reality is not relative to ones perception, but rather ones perception comes from looking at reality.

Well, say I die, then there is no more perceptions in the brain and nothing is left. So therefore, without the brain there is nothing, and reality is just perception.

 

Basically, true reality is not and can not be perceived.

 

Well is everyone else a figment of your imagination then? Or is their perceptions real as well?

Not exactly. What I'm trying to say is that yes, there is matter out in the universe, but that matter is really just nothing. The sun is there, but it is human perception that makes it hot, big, bright and round. As soon as the mind labels something it becomes untrue. When you look at a black book it is only black because your mind is there to perceive the light waves emitted from it. There is nothing behind those light waves, only our minds perceive it as something. Basically it is as if your mind perceives everything around you and puts you in a dream state where you think that everything you perceive is real, but then sometimes you can wake up and see that none of it is real and it is the mind that is creating all of those illusions. Then you can go back to your dream knowing that nothing can harm you because it is just a dream.

 

I am not sure what you are saying, are you a Nihilist?

What I am trying to say is that nothing but nothingness itself actually exists, everything else is just caused by perceptions which are ultimately just illusions. You can say that I am a nihilist for the most part.

[Zygimantas]

Unless we live in the matrix then you have to assume that reality is not relative to ones perception, but rather ones perception comes from looking at reality.

Well, say I die, then there is no more perceptions in the brain and nothing is left. So therefore, without the brain there is nothing, and reality is just perception.

 

Basically, true reality is not and can not be perceived.

 

Well is everyone else a figment of your imagination then? Or is their perceptions real as well?

Not exactly. What I'm trying to say is that yes, there is matter out in the universe, but that matter is really just nothing. The sun is there, but it is human perception that makes it hot, big, bright and round. As soon as the mind labels something it becomes untrue. When you look at a black book it is only black because your mind is there to perceive the light waves emitted from it. There is nothing behind those light waves, only our minds perceive it as something. Basically it is as if your mind perceives everything around you and puts you in a dream state where you think that everything you perceive is real, but then sometimes you can wake up and see that none of it is real and it is the mind that is creating all of those illusions. Then you can go back to your dream knowing that nothing can harm you because it is just a dream.

 

I am not sure what you are saying, are you a Nihilist?

What I am trying to say is that nothing but nothingness itself actually exists, everything else is just caused by perceptions which are ultimately just illusions. You can say that I am a nihilist for the most part.

 

Well that makes sense, eventually even matter wont exist and black holes will eventually run out of energy as well and cease to exist.

 

However what is nothingness? Space itself would still exist, as would time are those things or forces?

 

I know I am moving away from what you were talking about, but it is the only way I can make myself understand this concept.

 

Edit: you are right to say a lot of the world is based on how we perceive it, such as this: Is it a vase or 2 faces?

 

[hide][/hide]

I think nothingness is just what it sounds like. It is nothing really. If no time or matter ever existed then nothing would still be there. It is really something that is hard to grasp when one thinks about it too deeply.

 

It's both, but I usually see the faces first.

[mughinn]

In my opinion things do exist, but what you feel is your perception of them. They are not like you see , it's just the way the brain tries to discover what's happening in reality.

The thing you proposed with the sun, and humans making it big and hot, it's just like the proposal of the tree falling in a forest with no one to listen to it.

[Zygimantas]

In my opinion things do exist, but what you feel is your perception of them. They are not like you see , it's just the way the brain tries to discover what's happening in reality.

So things are not what we see them as, but they still exist? So our perceptions aren't real about real things?

[Saru Inc]

Sometimes I think people copy paste Wikipedia into their reply parts and click submit. These arguments are too carbon copy of basic beliefs.

 

Srry, I've been writing philosophy crap for like 3 weeks. DO NOT WANT NO MO FO SHO@

 

 

But for my belief personally, I believe our perceptions are much like the religion elephant analogy. Kinda. Not really. I'd delete that but I'll leave it in the post. But mentally disregard it.

 

 

I see that as sharp, you see it as soft. But it still *is* our perceptions may very, but our perceptions don't affect the existence of the "it."