December 4th, 2002
|04:16 am - i can't wait til i can hate you tonight|
so i am in the throes of working out a philosophy which is amoral (as opposed to immoral). basically, the idea that how someone chooses to respond to any set of circumstances is the only way they could have responded. because of their upbringing and personal morality and general ideas of life and anything that may be on their mind, their friends and parents and life up to that moment, the way they choose to act is the only choice that thier essence at that moment would decide upon. this isn't like fate, because you still are free to choose what you will, but an omnicient being judging just from your personality and life up to that moment could decisively say what you will choose (this is part of why i dont believe in omnicient beings, and even moreso the morality of their punishing/rewarding us for our choices). so i suppose an omnicient being would see our lives in much the same way someone who saw the future would. but luckily, from our limited vantage points, we are still all free to choose and do as we please according to our whims
this is rather unwieldy for day-to-day life, and only mildy comforting or explanatory (tho i only mildly believe it as yet, so that may follow), but it has some interesting implications. i think so anyway. any thoughts?
also i suppose chaos could cause problems for this idea. i don't know how much the jiggling quarks in our brains affect our decisions
sweet fucka! the auto body place says my car might be done by the end of the week. none of this waiting a month bullshit like henrys for them, oh no! :D
3 concepts which i think are of very dubious value and should probably be disposed of:
anyone want to defend them? or agree with me?
sometimes my absurd notions put me into absurd situations
What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
hehe, philly is selling xmas jello. green and red, with their traditional oddly crusty whipcream. mmm mmm
holy shit buy me 30 of these!! http://www.hammacher.com/publish/10321.asp?pcat=&pcont=scooter%20KWSP&cat=scooter%20KWSP
hahaha on an application it's asking my job history. for my duties and responsibilities at teh UNH Survey Center, i put "called people to ask them surveys questions and interrupt their dinners". i hope i get humor points. i'm applying to be a consultant for the student computer clusters, which apparently consists of talking on aim all day judging from larissa
coming soon: a post all about my thanksgiving break, complete with photos. or probably links to photos, cuz there's a lot of them
np: Ani Difranco - Reckoning - 13 - School Night
|Date:||December 4th, 2002 10:34 am (UTC)|| |
Your philosophy sounds very familar...
I agree with you about morality and justice, but honour should stay. We need at least one of those three though, and I think honour is the most useful.
I want a floaty scooter thingie too! I was reading it, going "Cool! Sounds good... AWESOME!" until I got to this part:
Item 10321 ........................ $14,999.95
Good luck with the application. I hope you get the job!
Looking forward to the pics.
i'm sure it does sound familiar, i'm not so creative as to come up with a whole new one. amusingly, as i was reading slaughterhouse 5 (Which i finally finished over the weekend) i realized that this was pretty much the exact philosophy of billy pilgrim and the tralfamadorians, and that vonnegutt had written the book candide-style to refute that idea. so i was agreeing with the train of thought that he was saying we can't accept (my main difference,whcih i think makes it palatable, is the acceptable of free will)
what does honor accomplish? i should point out that by honor i don't mean only in the fine upstanding sense, but the whole honor-to-pride spectrum of that inclination
yeah they are pretty fuckin expensive. but i guess you'd have to expect that from a hovercraft
thank you! i think i hope i get it too
|Date:||December 4th, 2002 11:24 am (UTC)|| |
Hmm.. I was going to say to keep justice...
And I'll buy hovercrafts all around when I win the lottery. Though I want a street legal one...
what do you think justice accomplishes?
hehe yeah, i didnt like that whole "keep onto private property" thing. half the fun would be cruising down main street
|Date:||December 4th, 2002 11:42 am (UTC)|| |
A system to resolve disagreements. Granted, if honesty were a given thing, justice wouldn't be needed, but it's obvious it isn't.
I'd like to see a top speed of 25mph or more, too. ;-)
no no, not the justice/legal system, which is handydandy. i mean actual justice, the concept. 'getting your just deserts' style justice. punishment for a crime justice. i don't see any appreciable difference between that and revenge, other than the involvement of a 3rd party. it accomplishes nothing, and only encourages people intent on committing crimes to be trickier about it. there is little rehabilitation, and if anything a lot of criminals become more criminal. whereas people in for crimes of passion, or need, just suffer for awhile and go home.
philosophy is pretty stupid because you are going to act under your first impulse and be yourself anyways, those hoity toity philosophers should go do something more useful instead of write stupid shit and aruge with each other over something that not matter which way it turns out wont change the world at all.
some people find/come up with a philosophy and live according to it
|Date:||December 5th, 2002 02:16 pm (UTC)|| |
Don't think honor is as pointless/useless as you think it is. To confuse Honor with Pride is making a mistake...Honor can go just as easily with humility and being humble. Plus I'd like to at least hope all those ninja/samurai/ronin weren't disembowling themselves over something so trivial.
Justice is tricky, some would argue goes hand in hand with morality...but maybe the opposite of justice IS NOT justice...but maybe instead the opposite of injustice is compassion.
Morality is tricky...some would argue the only way to construct any sort of moral guidelines or rules or even a simple code to live by and judge right and wrong requires a definition of morality...personally, i view things as amoral, and morality as a highly subjective concept...but even here there has to be some construct, just look at Nietzsche, amoral, but still had constructs that WOULD NOT allow for Hitler and the Nazis and stuff like that (which is what can, and did arise from an amoral philosophy combined with a misreading of Nietzsche)
As for the philosophy...if an omniscient being can defnitively say what decision you are GOING TO make, then how can there be free will? By that reasonoing, we only give ourselves the ILLUSION of free will. Also, what of people that up and out of the blue seem to make a choice that flies in the face of everything they are considered to be as well as what has influcenced them? Sometimes people are gamblers, sometimes not. Sometime speople are rational, sometimes not (not to confuse rationality with gambling and vice versa because this is not the case).
And yeah, chaos theory may have a quibble or two with the philosophy as well (which might go hand in hand with the whole "random decisions thing).
P.S. (making up for an oversight here) Now I will divert the conversation back to deer.....I almost yelled at a girl in class today for trying to equate the deer overpopulation problem to the human overpopulation problem....Equating deer to humans? retarded.
you tell me what they were disemboweling themselves for, then. i certainly don't know. and i don't think it's a mistake to mix honor and pride. a lot of people confuse them, and a lot of others are proud of their honor. i just don't see that honor accomplishes anything, and it makes people do a lot of stupid things
for both morality and justice, you started off saying it "some would argue".. would you?
justice as it exists today is the handing out of appropriate punishments for crimes. this can be pretty clearly seen not to deter crime, seeing as there is still lots of crime. this mainly succeeds in makign people miserable and bitter, and giving everyone in prison a chance to mingle and become more hardened criminals.
name something useful that can come from a moral code that can't come from reason. i don't know any nietzsche, i'm afraid, but as i understand it the nazis thought they were being pretty damn moral
let's suppose god and his omniscience sees that i'm going to wear a blue shirt tomorrow. he tells you this. no one tells me. i get up tomorrow, look at all my clothes, and say "hmm, what shall i wear today? oh i know, my blue shirt!" did i not act on my free will?
as to people making crazy choices, you answered your own question. theyre going against "everything they are considered to be". you can't 100% understand someone's mind, not even your own, i think. any decision someone makes comes from something in their internal state that said, at that moment, that THIS is the decision you should make, HERE is what you should do. so you do. and maybe tomorrow you wake up and realize it was a horrible plan all along
yeah, that girl is just silly. people are hit by cars far more often than deer.
|Date:||December 6th, 2002 10:14 am (UTC)|| |
A lot of people might confuse honor and pride, but it is still a mistake that they are making in that conception. Being proud of ones honor is only diluting it. Honor is closer (but perhaps not EXACTLY the same) to ideas like "integrity" and at times "respect" or "reverence."
As for morality and justice going hand, I personally think that they probably do. I'm not sure myself, actually. But you cannot try to define justice just by what the current powers that be define it as. Their idea of justice may be way off (and according to your implications, probably is).
Then there's morality vs. reason. I don't think morality and reason are explicitly opposites of one another. There are moral philosophies completely built upon reason (Emmanuel Kant probably being the most famous moral philosopher to do this). Also, any moral philosophy must be at least tempered by reason (or reasonable thought) or else you just probably end up with a Paternalist type system with stupid rules like Divine Command Theory and laws backed up by "Cuz I (or God, through me) Said So"
As for those crazy Nazis....they sure thought they were right, but probably a good amount of them (including Hitler) thought they were establishing an order of Nietzsche's "ubermensch"...establishing their own order and morality on an amoral world...many Nazi soldiers were found with copies of Nietzsche's writing on them and Hitler even had one of Nietzsche's quotes placed above the entrance to one of the concentration camps (can't recall which camp and what quote, although i'm sure it was something pertaining to that idea of the "ubermensch" and/or the amoral universe). Point is, Hitler clearly loved what he got out of Nietzsche's writing, just too bad he misread or simply skipped over the parts that would have conflicted with his own ideaology.
As for the philosophy part....do you mean that even if our choices are determined (since they can already be seen by the omniscient) BUT we cannot possibly perceive these determinations in advance, then the conflict between them becomes simply open to question and unresolvable....if this is what you mean, then i think i can see what you're saying. Indeed, our actions and choices do have consequences and we can still learn from them, so even if there is some sort of predestination, we still have free will and cannot escape responsibility. I think your philosophy calls for a compatabilist viewpoint on predestination vs. free will (or essentialy, that they're two sides to the same coin).
|Date:||December 8th, 2002 04:30 am (UTC)|| |
It's hard to say that there's no free will, which is the implication of someone being able to make predictions with complete accuracy about our actions.
Even if you say it feels like free will to us, if they know, it's not free will. It's the observer effect - once something is known, it is, basically.
Although you can get around this with Quantum Many-World theory, which is great.
You know. We all exist as we exist, and the universe splits on decision points, on choice going one way, one the other, another another, and so on.
This is perfectly compatible with any omniscient being you may moot, because you just have to assume that they know the exact probabilities for you choosing any one thing at any one time. And the probabilities, given your choice, of some other event.
Which is much more real-world compatible, too, because people do do things that do not hold with their previous behaviour/experience/etc. Although it means omniscient has a whooooole lot of *all* to know. eh.
The human neural system is much more chaotic than almost any other system around, it doesn't follow simple rules, identical inputs can produce different outputs, so you can't assume you only really have the option you chose to take as an option. You have all the options you can think of, and some more.
I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling quarks!
I'm too tired to think about this much, or to tell you my personal philosophy, as it's crazed, but feel free to
abuse me speak to me about this more. As it's a vaguely interesting realm of speculation.