|
| Thread: Nature... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
posted April 16, 2007 07:44 PM |
|
|
Well as I said to baklava if you manage to convince the world populus to work for greater good of us all rather than the greater good of one self than I'll be happy.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 16, 2007 07:55 PM |
|
|
Well I was just doing some phylosophy (or how is it called?).. I don't think I'm the right person to convince the entire population 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 16, 2007 09:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think I'm the right person to convince the entire population
None of us is...
Perhaps Hitler would be able to do it; if he weren't an evil rampaging demented lunatic...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 12:48 AM |
|
|
I heard something about him eating a carpet... what was that about?
also, you don't have to convince everyone. Jesus (suposedly) is the most well known religious figure in most of the world (barring asia) and he only started with a few friends.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 17, 2007 01:00 AM |
|
|
If you want to accomplish something close to what Jesus accomplished you really have to be an impressive individual.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
whinie_the_b...
Adventuring Hero
grrrrr!
|
|
posted April 18, 2007 03:00 AM |
|
|
It`s funny if you think about it, the monetary system and thus the economy was invented to make trade more efficient, in other words to make our lives easier. It`s not true anymore is it? Nowdays we serve the economy and not the other way round. No one should need to convince people to work for the common good, it should be obvious that it`s better for us in the long term. I think it`s pointless to talk about messiahs when we could improve our lives so much with just a little common sense.
And now, it`s time for the pics!
Greece
-Kreta
-Parnon mountain
Antwerp, Belgium When men and nature coexist in harmony
Tayrona, Colombia
some animals..
and the coolest, most gorgeous of them all: the black panther!
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 01:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It`s funny if you think about it, the monetary system and thus the economy was invented to make trade more efficient, in other words to make our lives easier. It`s not true anymore is it? Nowdays we serve the economy and not the other way round. No one should need to convince people to work for the common good, it should be obvious that it`s better for us in the long term. I think it`s pointless to talk about messiahs when we could improve our lives so much with just a little common sense.
It is interesting that people somehow see economy as something separate form individual. We never invented economy it was always there (since we evolved to our current form). One can not separate oneself from economy. a choice of buying apples and not oranges is economic decision, taking a walk instead of a car is economic decision. Even stopping to buy anything and starting to produce for yourself everything will be economic decision.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:02 AM |
|
|
Colonel_Here,
Quote:
The actions of humans and animals are a result of two things: 1. Attempt to increase happiness. 2. Attempt to decrease pain.
I'm not convinced there is any truth in this philosophy what so ever. I would further more try to be far more careful in attempting to: 1. Relate/associate the actions between humans and animals. 2. Attempt to so simplistically define my own actions. You indirectly did this when you mentioned humans. I am human. I can, with great great conviction, impart to you that my actions are by no means: 1. Simple 2. Directed solely at increasing my own happiness (not to mention that I am no animal)
Simplicity in the way you have described can be one of our most formidable adversaries. When using such broad and sweeping statements of simplistic generalization, we run the risk of overlooking the needs of the individual for the good of the state. The good of the many do not necessarily outweigh the needs of the few. I find your lack of philosophical acceptance toward personal choice to be unsettling.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:41 AM |
|
Edited by pomo at 07:54, 20 Apr 2007.
|
Actually I agree with Colonel_Here - human cognition develops from infancy through experiences of physical pleasure and pain. Over time the brain develops associations between particular stimuli and the experience of pleasure or discomfort. So the presence of your mother comes to be associated with warmth, food, and physical affection and you transfer the positive affect from those pleasurable experiences to your mother.
So how then to explain stuff like altruism, ideological attachments to capitalism/communism/unions/whatever? Like Consis says, we certainly don't understand our behaviour as derived solely from the basic necessities of survival.
The thing is that our brains come to view the objects associated with pleasurable experiences as desireable in and of themselves. Furthermore, as we develop more and more extensive webs of association we can incorporate things that we experience abstractly, such as beliefs about 'the economy'.
Altruistic behaviour derives from previous experiences where such behaviour results in the experience of approval, rewards etc. If a child is punished when they assist their sibling - will they continue to do so? Probably not.
So when Colonel_Here says that human actions are...
Quote:
1. Attempt to increase happiness. 2. Attempt to decrease pain.
he is right - although because we have developed preferences for abstract cognitive objects such as altruism we do not experience it as such.
Quote:
Simplicity in the way you have described can be one of our most formidable adversaries. When using such broad and sweeping statements of simplistic generalization, we run the risk of overlooking the needs of the individual for the good of the state. The good of the many do not necessarily outweigh the needs of the few. I find your lack of philosophical acceptance toward personal choice to be unsettling.
Consis - I have no idea how you take a pretty basic statement of human psychology to seemingly imply communism. If you're referring to Colonel_Here's argument that states should subsidise environmentally friendly economic practices then I presume the needy few you mention are the directors of Shell? Anyway, there was certainly no denial of personal choice.
Also @ Baklava about the comparison between flowers and birds wings - plants don't have a central nervous system, and so don't experience pain. You should check out Peter Singer's books - he's a very interesting philosopher  .
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am no animal
Animal is a living organism that is distinguished from plants by independent movement and responsive sense organs. Ok, which part of the definition doesn't fit you?
Simple examples
Person eats - that gives a person happiness and avoids the pain of hunger
Person drinks - that gives a person happiness and avoids the pain of thirst
Person drinks alcoholic beverage - person believes that the happiness he/she achieves because of drinking right now will outweigh the pain of the hangover.
Person works - that gives him money and happiness and avoids pain of being poor
Person decides to be poor - person believes that the happiness of being poor will outweigh the pain of being poor
Most people who see problems with my philosophy point out that actions such as giving charity and caring for other human beings would conflict with philosophy since they do not bring any happiness to the person, so why that person should do it?
Any altruism action would be performed by the person only if it will give that person happiness in exchange for pain of doing it. What happiness? Person feels better about himself/herself and therefore that gives happiness to that person.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:32 PM |
|
|
That's overly simplistic.
Some people love their work. That's what makes them happy.
Some people are pshychopats and have a necessity to kill, for example. Even if they aren't happy (crazy of some sort).
You feel good when you help someone. [of course that depends on person]
Why don't you feel good when you help nature? [again depends on person]
Oh and 'feeling good' is deeper than plain biological pleasure
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh and 'feeling good' is deeper than plain biological pleasure
If that's directed at me, that's true - but mostly because we've developed positive associations with abstract stimuli over the course of our lives - initially through physical pleasures.
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 20, 2007 07:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:02, 20 Apr 2007.
|
No that was not directed at you, it was a public addressation.
I don't know much about what you typed (I assume it's pshychology or biology), but I know it's mostly true. Still a portion of it (since I said mostly) makes us do irrational things. And then there's imagination too 
I think the main idea is respect and treat everything equally (while being Good of course). I have great respect for the environment (including humans, but not only them like most do).
EDIT: I think we have degenerated far too deep into a situation where we are taught mostly wrong things. I know economy is good, without it we're trash, etc.. but it was a wrong road from the start. the question is, are we really that deep so as to cannot turn back around?
as for turning back, yes that would require completely honest humans (to live in harmony, without police etc..), hey but I'm dreaming 
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 21, 2007 04:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's overly simplistic.
Some people love their work. That's what makes them happy.
Some people are pshychopats and have a necessity to kill, for example. Even if they aren't happy (crazy of some sort).
You feel good when you help someone. [of course that depends on person]
Why don't you feel good when you help nature? [again depends on person]
Oh and 'feeling good' is deeper than plain biological pleasure
The idea of attempting to increase happiness and attempting to decrease pain comes from utilitarianism. Economics use the same idea to base their research on. How do economists create demand curves for different products? They get Utility curves which measure the person's preference of certain product depending on its price, price of competition, quality and etc. and derive demand curve from that.
And of course each person due to their uniqueness will have different utility curve and so while to one person killing another person will be painful to another it would be enjoyable.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 21, 2007 05:13 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:23, 21 Apr 2007.
|
Beauty
You are talking about stressing usefulness over beauty Colonel_Here. You're talking about the utility of something, including people! According to your doctrines the worth or value of something is determined solely by its utility. And this is then interpreted to meaning: the purpose of all action is to bringing about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
In my mind it is a flawed philosophy. You talk of making individuals happy through the organization of quantifiable/measurable value placed upon a thing and people. (by whom? Other persons-sounds like passing judgment) It's akin to saying that a person has a value based on what they can do for you or the larger group. That direction of philosophy is not about beauty. That beauty is based on what you can do, as if to say to someone, "Well my Dear you serve no foreseeable purpose to me or my cause and so you're really quite ugly and useless. I cannot utilize you in any fashion and so what point is there to your existence?". That doesn't sound "beautiful" to me at all!
What a lovely thought, the idea that people and objects are meant to serve or service the individual or group? It seems I've found a new definition for the word: arrogant
How can we as human beings give definitive values to anything? How is it that we can know all there is to know about a thing or person and give it/him/her such narrow-minded definition? The idea that a person can be degraded to be defined solely by his or her definitive actionable utilities is absurd. I believe that God gave us beauty that we can only discover through time and providence. You don't know everything, especially when it concerns a person. People have beauty in different ways, contributions in different forms, and purpose to existence that we might not be aware of. That's the beauty of not only persons but also nature too. Part of what makes something or someone beautiful is how it or they can surprise you! Maybe they couldn't help you in the way that you could foresee, but then they played an integral part of shaping an unforeseeable set of circumstances indirectly related to your own existence.
The idea of utilitarianism seems to me to be yet another attempt from human beings trying to say they can definitively know everything there is to know about a very specific piece of our existence. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. The usefulness of something may not always be knowable or even quantifiable. But then that is only one opinion of a lesser belief (according to many) which is that God meant for us to enjoy the beauty of all things earthly. And of course I am most certainly very near alone in this place when speaking of such greatly infinite concepts as the Beautifully designed unforeseeable love, wisdom, and mercy of God in all things both useful and useless.
When you don't see God, God sees you. When you can't think of what to do, God has already answered the question. When you deserve equal and fair retribution, God shows you mercy. When no one will comfort you, remember always that God loves you.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 22, 2007 08:12 AM |
|
|
To Consis
Yes utilitarianism assumes perfect information in order to determine the utils of things. However it can be used even if we don't know exact number of utils. Eating at a fine restaurant bits junks food even if we don't know how many utils to attach to each type of food. That is how it mostly goes.
Yes we all have a potential to surprise with our performance. So if that potential is shown to us we will evaluate it, if it is not shown than we can't put value on it. Since humans like all animals are risk averse we will go with what has more definite value than what might have potential value but we don't see it.
Do you go around picking up stones just because there is potential that one of them will have gold ore in it or do you pick one up in which you can see the ore?
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted April 22, 2007 12:35 PM |
|
|
|
I don't agree. Utilitarianism does NOT assume perfect information - it is a statement of priorities, not some kind of econometric model. All that is assumed by utilitarianism as a philosophy of governance is that there should be SOME capacity for policy makers to limit individual freedoms in order to increase the good of the majority. This frankly, is absolutely uncontroversial - the most liberal governments (such as the US and Australian) do this routinely when they make any kind of criminal law, subsidise any kind of production etc. etc. What differs mostly is the rhetoric - not the content of the policy that is made. Where differences do exist they are largely of degree rather than kind. The idea of utilitarianism that you're attacking is a straw man Consis - it doesn't exist.
|
|
Colonel_here
Adventuring Hero
Descendant of Ghengis Khan
|
|
posted April 22, 2007 04:21 PM |
|
|
Slight clarification of concept of the greatest amount of happiness for greatest amount of people.
This doesn't mean that the group takes president over individual in all cases.
If individuals will get 50 utils from some action while the rest of the people will get -10 than the action will be performed. So happiness comes first and the amount of people come second.
____________
"The job of saving the lives of those who are sinking is the task of those who are sinking" - Ostap Bender
"Only a fool fights a battle he knows he can not win" - Ghengiz Khan
|
|
|
|
