Messages

Kurt Vonnegut! At least Slaughterhouse Five and Cat's Cradle are truly weird books.

Oh... I get it. *Wanders off*

Veritas: You're really trying to piss me off aren't you? I'm not really motivated to discuss with you, especially since you seem more interested in pointing out my stupidity than actually making your point, which makes me tired.

But okay, if (IF) what you're saying is that "morals" are defined as exactly the same thing as our basic biological motivations, then what is moral philosophy? Just psychology, without the actual experimenting?

I gather the definition of "morals" used in this thread to be something like "the most common set of behaviour rules consciously propagated by society". Of course, some people might prefer the definition "the set of facts about Right and Wrong" or something else entirely. Everyone picks their favorite! And then: take cover...

compassion: Sorry for the lame response, I suppose I'm just not certain enough in my beliefs to get worked up over them

Veritas: well, if you must know, I did actually study philosophy for a while, and I do think I have a fair grasp of most of the fancy terms that you mentioned. I agree that these studies was mostly useful for finding out what I don't agree with.

In any case, I've found out that a) until I rejected basically all the theories I leared (except perhaps the semantic and ontological theory of emotivism/value-nihilism which seems kind of neat) I was even more confused than before, because I was bombarded with all sorts of questions and dilemmas that I had never even contemplated before. This was all well and good, because I came out of it with a much clearer picture (IMHO).

But the thing is, b) trying to use this knowledge in a debate with most people who have not studied moral philosophy (and some who have) is just not workable. They will either dismiss you as a total academic with no real understanding of reality, or they will be confused because their words don't mean the same as yours. And this is not a very productive confusion that usually leads nowhere. It's not made any easier by the fact that many people get very emotional over hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas, etc.

It's easy to say that philosophers have worked the whole thing out (and they're not even agreeing, are they?) but that just doesn't matter to most people.

There's always a lot of confusion in any debate about the nature of "morals" and so far I haven't found a way of untangling the arguments that seems meaningful to everybody.

However, I think the whole concept of "morality" is pretty much empty words. You can talk about a "system of values" which is accepted by the majority if you ask them. Probably there is such a system that is statistically reasonably stable and even seems non-contradicting. But then there are real situations where people have to face tough decisions and sometimes they have to weigh one "value" against another. It suddenly boils down to gut feeling. Not that the gut feeling excludes what you think others will think about your decision... but, still, a moral decision becomes something entirely different when it's about you. Maybe we should just stop pretending that it doesn't.

And you get all sorts of "other" factors entering into it. Ask almost anyone if killing is OK and you'll get a "no". Still, a country can go to war and most of the population thinks that is OK because, well, they started it, or it's about freedom or whatever. It's so far away and we're too caught up in choosing the texture of our new wallpapers, and so on. And still, Joe-on-the-street, if asked, will not agree that things like personal comfort should have impact on moral decisions.

"Right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "evil", ... all concepts people use when they need to give children reasons why they can't do this or that. It's always a simplification; perhaps they don't want to have to explain something about sex or death, or maybe they just don't know. But children start to associate the words with punishments and rewards, which means that later on they can be led by the nose by people who know this. These are the real fnords. And they're usually the reasons that people get so worked up over moral issues in a debate. But when the real, infinitely complex situations occur, the simple words aren't there and people suddenly have to make their own decisions.

So yes... "amorality" sounds pretty good to me actually. Even though I don't think it's possible to rid oneself entirely from these semantic reactions, making yourself aware of them is the first and probably the most important step.

I've always perceived and used "dogmatic" in the sense of "being firmly rooted in one paradigm and vehemently dismissing anything which challenges it".  With that in mind, I'd actually claim that science is even more dogmatic than most religions.

Speaking as a part of the "scientific community" I think this is a gross overstatement. Sure, scientists are people too, they're often very "smart" in the area they do research, but many could be considered downright "stupid" in other areas.The scientific method is what ties them all together, but it's just a really useful tool. What you get from it depends on how you use it. It's really not too different from the way most people learn things by trial and error. Scientists just happen to be trained to use it to maximum advantage.

If the scientific method is used well, it can be tremendously powerful, but it's not miraculous. Basically, it relies on statistics from past measurements to make statements about future measurements. That means it's, almost by definition, a slow process to do science. You can never truly prove anything, and even to disprove something you still usually need tons of data saying the same thing before people start taking you seriously. It's just not practically possible for everyone to be constantly observant of every little challenge to the current models. That's why there's almost always a "paradigm". It's not written in stone though. Not by far.

The thing is, many people just seem to need truths. Politicians for example. Actually, most humans it seems, want some fundamental facts to be stable, to base their life on. If science was wholly independent of the support of such people and if scientific acclaim wasn't connected to personal power, I don't think "paradigms" would ever be a problem in science. But, as it is, scientists must somehow keep at least a respectable facade in order to get grants for their next project, and so on. That's part of why they simply can't follow up on every crazy idea they get, even if they would like to. Sadly, I suppose many are influenced by this situation, into not even wanting to challenge their own "truths", which means they turn into beliefs. But, as I said, scientists are just people.

I will freely admit that the scientific method is no magical shield against one's own stupidity. It requires that one is able to formulate the questions in the first place. But once you do, I think it's a really neat tool to have for systematically finding answers.

Great rant, man. I've been worrying a bit about my own creativity too, lately. I rarely watch TV, but I do spend a lot of time on the stupid part of the 'net. I think I used to be much more creative than I am now. It's simply easier to consume information compared to synthesizing it.

I think I too possess the first kind of "boringness" you mention, in that I mostly prefer to be on my own, or just sitting around with friends doing nothing in particular. But I'm hardly ever actually bored, if there's nothing else going on I can always activate my brain and start thinking about any of the zillion things I usually have going on up there at any given moment. However, these days, most of my pet projects don't turn into anything solid in the end. Maybe that's just not important enough, but it still feels kind of sad. I should really do something about that.

http://www.yellow5.com/pokey requires a zen-like state of mind but when you acquire that, it's magical.
http://www.angryflower.com is just great. Especially the older ones, nowadays I feel it's too much about politics.

I'm Loki, apparently.

Personally, I believe Arthur C Clarke said that.

And I agree, E-Prime seems like a good idea! Anyone else here who's read "Science and Sanity" by Korzybski?

Gnimbley: OK, looked her up a bit but it seems like none of her books are available in the library here. Now I'm curious enough that I think I'll have to find some.

Maaaa... I wanted to be Kurt Vonnegut, but instead I'm Octavia E. Butler whom I've never even heard of.

Sponge Bob is fun, but Ren & Stimpy is funner.

And Hotsuma, is there anything, besides disliking stuff, that you like?

[Ren and Stimpy]

I couldn't find a thread on nominating saints and I really urgently need to nominate Ren and Stimpy for sainthood. To me they're a fine illustration of the eternal play between the principles of Destructive Order (Ren) vs. Creative Disorder (Stimpy).

Also, my favourite episode is "Sven Hoek".
"My collection of rare, incurable diseases... viloated!" - Ren
"It's de funnest game in ze yole vide yorld!" - cousin Sven

I second that "Critical Path" is an interesting read. It's the only bucky-book I've read so far but I think it's supposed to be someting of an overview of his most important work. It even has a "speculative prehistory" of humanity in it

I think some parts of the book are potentially-off-putting to some people e.g. those who don't understand the word "speculative" and those who have trouble with Bucky's way of new-word-inventing. But I'm sure none of these handicaps are shared by the people on this board!