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 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).