What is our purpose in life? "Our manifest purpose in life, aside from religious creationist views, is to survive, multiply and consume. On a more psychological and personal level, it's my belief that life is about experiences, memories, and abilities."
"It's my belief that philosophy is limited to intelligence and perhaps creativity."
"There are three types of minds I've self-defined and encountered so far, scientific, religious, spiritualist, conspiratorial or irrational."
"Supposedly with our mind sets (because i think the same way you do), it's best to do what we love. Once we are happy in doing what we love, we shall remain happy. Perhaps in this happiness we should find that special someone who we can share the rest of our lives with."
"If I may, the basis of Japanese culture comes down to personal moral and ethical disciplines. Such as the teaching of Buddha. It advocates humility, harmony, and prosperity. However, the Western way of thinking is very much different without emphasis on personal moral and ethical disciplines, instead it derives from Judaic-based values."
“Why is there many people emphasizing anarchy as the best way to eliminate crime? I understand without crime there is free will; however, everyone would be subjected to the lawlessness of others. The following ideologies would be: the strong will survive and the weak will die, the most powerful family, clans, or religion will rule, and if we advance to the ideology in WWII, there will be a fight for racial superiority. The least case scenario would be that human-kind would lose intelligence because of a lack of education resulting in going back into a primitive state of thinking. In addition, there would never be peace and human advancement. Knowing this cycle, having no laws is not the way to go.”
What makes an action moral? "If I may refer to the original post, what makes an action moral, is possibly the ability to know if an action is done with the basis of knowing what is right and wrong. Knowing what is right and wrong is done through the basis of reasoning and logic."
Morality. Subjective or objective? "I believe it's objective; however, it depends on culture.
(further explanation) I personally believe that basing things on emotion is a terrible decision. Instead, things should be done through logic. For example: if you fight with you father and you decide to leave out of rage; you have made a decision based on emotion. However, if you fight with your father and understand how being enraged isn't going to do any good and so you decide to cool down; you have made a decision based on logic. In relation to the original post, I believe morality (principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior) can be objective because it seems to have a truth value (or methods of which can be true); however, it also seems to be subjective because not everyone agrees with the same ideas. In conclusion, morality, to me, seems to be objective, however it can also be subjective. Therefore, it's left for a person's personal interpretation. If I may rephrase or translate this into English, I would state that morality can be objective because it's something that is true to everyone; however, it is also subjective because it can also be left for one's personal opinion or ideas that others can agree on."
Is prostitution ethically wrong? even in the society where the prostitution is legal? Yes or No? Please give your idea on this problem! "Morally, it is wrong; however, that does not mean it's not ethical. If I may state my political opinion, it's my opinion that prostitution should be legalized, however only inside brothels. All brothels and public servants should be cared for properly and presented with mandatory health checks. All brothels should stay away from city limits or at least from locations where children are present. The reason I think brothels should be legalized is because: 1. Brothels will allow for females to provide with services that are healthy and offer protection. 2. It helps eliminate crime and cleans up the atmosphere from an environment. 3. It allows single men who want to actively seek companionship to have a healthy, clean, and protected environment for female services. 4. It reduces unwanted pregnancy. 5. It will help reduce violence against woman. 6. It allows females to be in an institution in which they can find help (or even religion) if they so desire. 7. Allowing brothels will reduce the amount of females who turn towards this way of life. 8. Prostitution has been around throughout history, it seems like common sense that it's not going away. Therefore, it seems justifiable to legalize it and place it in a remote location where it won't be a problem. By doing this it seems prostitution which is essentially immoral can have a place in society where it does not pose a problem or further influence to society; thus, in conclusion, creating a more moral-safe and ethical environment."
Is saving a frog that's being chased by a snake moral? "I think there's not really an answer to this question aside from personal opinion. If you let the frog go, it may have it's chance or otherwise be consumed. This is nature. If you save the frog. It's like divine intervention. This just means the frog gets to live another day. Morality seems to have no meaning in this question, because there's no right or wrong."
(an inspired post) "Is the question here about whether intervention in this scenario is moral..or is it about the guilt involved in the desire to effect because you can." - gearoid macGabhann
Is the United States of America a free nation? If not which nation is actually free? What is a free nation? “Referring to the original post, it's my personal opinion that I believe Asian counties have the most freedom. There's more emphasis on happiness and living a happy and personalized life style. However, being that Westerners don't look Asian, might not speak the language or understand their culture, it's less likely that you'll be welcomed to permanently live there.
It's also my opinion that when there is emphasis on freedom to a country, then it's possible the country isn't really free because a truly free country doesn't need to question or even consider their freedom, it's something that should seem or feel natural.”
Can murder be justified?
"This can be debatable. I personally believe that it'll never be justifiable because it is immoral. I also believe that something of this nature has a scientific explanation and solution. That being said, I would like to state that even though I personally disagree, this can be highly debatable. An example is: If there was a tyrannical king that was causing it's kingdom to suffer, and there's nothing an ordinary citizen can do about it, then murder for the greater good of the people could be considered justifiable."
"Perhaps anarchy would be a considerable form of government if people were to have personal ethics and moral disciplines, much like Asian cultures."
"I asked my dad many years ago 'what do you do, dad' and he told me he was a philosopher. So I said to him 'oh, say something philosophical then' and he replied. I can't just say something out of the blue like that, I have to think about it first. So are we philosopher when we answer with such speed, or are we just commentators voicing an opinion? As far as I can see philosophy asks more questions than it answers and really does not, or is not supposed to, offer up any solutions for how could there be solutions to anything in an ever changing and evolving world. “Sometimes great philosophical concepts need a kick in the butt. Therefore, I think it's great to think about an idea first, as you stated, but better to come up with questions that could lead us to think further. In conclusion there is no right or wrong answer to philosophize, aside from answering out of ignorance.”
Dear philosophers, what does it mean to be civilized? Are we truly civilized?
Why is it so easy to fuck things up? Why is it so hard to unfuck things up?
Me: "Well, if you thought about not f^cking things up then there could have been a good chance that you wouldn't of f*cked things up. Sounds to me like consequence; "look before you leap". Unless you are referring to the difficulty of redemption, forgiveness or the idea of second chances."
Budos Budos Gali:"I don't think people intentionally fuck things up. I think people really try to not fuck things up but lets honest people fuck up things often. A mistake here, an error there."
Me: "It's my opinion that life is about decision, it's up to us to make the right ones. In the long run, you'll f!ck things up less or not as bad. The only drawback, life isn't as fun. :T" (1 like)
Budos Budos Gali: "The tough decisions are bitch though! And like you said, what about second chances. Think about how rarely life gives second chances."
Me: "Hmmm. Tough decisions, like the story of bloody hands. I guess it comes down to making a decision using morals. However, it is true that life rarely gives you second chances; therefore, I think it's best not to f&ck up. XD" (1 like)
Image: Anchoring, mental accounting, confirmation and hindsight bias, gambler’s fallacy, herd behavior, overconfidence, overreactions and available bias, loss aversion (prospect theory) You are not rational.
"Referring to your image, I think this is very interesting, I personally think we determine our level of rationality; that is, if we understand/ self-perceive rationality."
If there is no God, hope of after-life and reward after death, then why do we strive to do good? If beleif in God brings out the virtues and fine qualities in those that beleive and makes them to live peaceably with one another, then i think the belief in God is worth letting be. or what do you think?
“Referring to the original post, my belief is we should not do good in seek of reward for the after-life, but to do good out of oblation for humanity. To me, it seems rather selfish to only do good for the personal endeavor reach of heaven. I see more reward in humanity having to do good to keep peace and harmony in society and to further gain working with each other to grow in technological advancement and further exploration.”
If one day you find yourself in darkness,remain calm and do not be frightened.
Pull up a chair and talk to it awhile,for it can teach you what it means to be enlightened.
“Your statement seems to have a deeper meaning. For the most part it seems to me that you're telling us to look at a situation differently in recognition to learn from it, rather than react. Perhaps it depends on the situation in which you should know when to react or not react at tall. Moreover, it seems like common sense when things are at their worst that being calm and re-examining the solution to a situation is a logical action. While understanding one's logic of action oppose to a normal reaction (something an average minded individual would do), one can examine and learn from oneself.”
Hey tell me if my assumption is correct- The majority of the population is merely "spending time" on this planet, right? And only a limited population is actually doing something that takes humanity to the next levels.
“Referring to the original post, people seem to be measly spending time on this planet; however, they are doing so in their own little world; even though in reality they are working in a political machine. Most have no clue what is really actually happening around them, nor do they care, like a mole living underground. Nevertheless, perhaps it cannot be helped. Those who want to make an influence in life look at life differently than others. They want to experience life by playing by their own rules and to seek purpose from a life in which possibly has no meaning. I say seeking or creating a meaning for life is what life is truly about.”
"The limits of my world are the limits of my language" - Wittgenstein
"I would like to disagree with Wittgenstein's statement. I think the limits of my world are limited to my creativity and knowledge, as well as the ability to communicate effectively with others. That is, if I'm referring to the same philosophical concept as Wittgensteins."
Why suicide is immoral/illegal/cowardly act or a sin ??
“It is immoral, because you take the idea of death into your own hands. As if deciding your own fate. It is immoral, because of the sadness and grief it may cause, because your acting out of emotion, and you're failing to find a solution in which you can turn your life around. For further advice, the solution is to look inside yourself, find out what is making yourself unhappy and use it to change one's life. If all fails, look to reinvent your life and start over new with a new identity.”
Is is possible to do nothing...?
“By doing nothing, you're doing something. XD”
so does nothing exist?
“Apparently so. XD”
“Perhaps nothing is a stationary state of unchange.”
“If I may maybe contradict myself for the sake of provoking thought, if something is nothing, yet is something, then the reality of the matter is that everything is constantly changing. Therefore, a state of unchange is not true. Therefore, in a contradictory conclusion nothing could be something making the objective "nothing" non existent; therefore, nothing doesn't exist.”
Is it a silly waste of time, money, and temper to advocate for peace when we know war and conflict is inevitable? (is War and bloody conflict inevitable?)
“I personally believe peace is possible; however, civility and rationality needs to be achieved first. It can be achieved by the use of moral and ethics. This must be done on a personal level, social level, and governing level.”
If there is no supreme being, will evil ever be held accountable?
“Referring to the original post, if there's no supreme being, then no, "evil" would not be held accountable. It would be left to the idea of attaining justice by human intervention.”
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The reason there is something rather than nothing is because there's something out there we don't fully understand. Perhaps beyond the scope of theoretical astronomy or understanding of dimensions, we could find an answer. As for the human race, I can state that there is nothing, with nothing something. To break this more down, we exist without purpose, and without purpose we create purpose.
Is our universe real?
I would assume so, but it's uncertain. Hume messed with my head on this one. I guess the real question is what is the purpose of a universe. Perhaps understanding it's existence or how we came to be will help us understand if it's real.
Do we have free will?
Noticing the patterns of personalities and our human nature, there's very subtle differences in every human being. I question if we actually have free will or it's part of our neural programming. Nevertheless, one thing is certain humans are spontaneous creatures.
Does God exist?
I often come back to this question. According to the biblical scripts (old testament, book of Enoch, the Torah, the Koran..etc.) which dates as far back as humanity can remember to tell of the beginning, it's a possibility in which god exists. Nevertheless, looking at the structure of nature, the planet, and our primitive to current evolution, it seems to act as if it was without. I guess what makes me think more is the question what is god? Is he a supreme creator/ entity, extraterrestrial, or dimensional entity. According to the old testament, he seems to be all these things. Nevertheless, noticing the different attitudes he has in the bible, it seems there are two versions, maybe three version of him. One as the creator, one as the lamb (gentle, kind, and loving), and one of the lion (wrath, justice, and promise). The question of god's existence will remain an unsolved one until or if he returns.
Is there life after death?
I would like to think so, I mean the only evidence we have for a scientific analysis over life after death is the fact we lose a significant amount of energy and weight after we die. And no, it's no because we poo ourselves after we cross over. According to most biblical and ancient manuscripts, there is a life after death; the most being insightful is the Tibet book of the dead.
I like the idea that you judge yourself without knowing it as you experience your death's sequence to another form of life.
I would also like to mention that we shouldn't rule out the idea that when we die, we cease to exist. An idea like that may seem irrelevant considering the universe reuses whatever it creates. Still something to consider, however.
Can you really experience anything objectively?
Everything that i have experience seems to be subjective; nevertheless, that's just me being broke. I can't say we should place our thoughts on experiencing everything objectively because down to the molecular level we don't fully understand what keeps thing together (don't fully understand what makes a solid a solid or why things have a magnetic field in which we think keeps things together).
What is the best moral system?
There was a philosopher, I forgot his name(could have been John Locke), but he thought the best moral system was an evident moral system; pretty much meaning every man for himself. Taking that into consideration it seems the best moral philosophy would indeed be an evident moral philosophy. Nevertheless, with an evident moral guide everyone would be individualistic and barbaric; nevertheless, humans were made to be social creatures; therefore, rules for harmonizing a society would be needed. Now i would like to express my personal beliefs on the best moral philosophy for governing. With an evident moral philosophy, everyone is self-governing, they also have the moral justification that they should do things to keep order and harmony between others. In other words, every person is free to do what they want but within boundaries of harmony of each other as describe by understanding the Analects known by great, and my personal favorite, philosopher Confucius.
In addition a world dictated by common sense (rules of natural order) and the rule/idea to do good or to do what's right would be the only two moral systematic blueprints one would need to understand a peaceful way of living with others. To fully understand what I’m saying you need to understand Confucius’s and John Locke's philosophical views.
If not this governing system the next best governing system would simply be a republic. A bunch of people come up with proposition, elect a representatives, and the representatives can narrow down what it is that the people want to achieve and come to an agreement. A complete democracy doesn't work because it's still chaos as a collage of people try to all work together to come to an agreement.
What are numbers?
Numbers are a simple representation of objects we perceive that exists.
Eliana Hoffman: How important should sex be in our society? Does sex have a deeper purpose than pleasure and procreation?
Me: ... This is a heated thread.
Relating to the question, I don't think sex should have an active role in society; however, there should be a necessary tolerance for sex as it is human nature. I also don't think sex has a greater purpose unless we create it to have a greater purpose otherthan pleasure and procreation. If I may, by society's standards, such a role would most likely be considered immoral due to cultural values. From a human nature or biological standpoint, it seems only useful for procreation purposes. Controversially, there aren't any rules for procreation aside from that which man creates, so technically there are no rules unless you follow rules made by institution, culture or oneself. Nonetheless, I think perhaps rules for common sense or the use of ethics is necessary for the safety or function of society.
I advise this question is highly suggestive and should be skipped due to it's erotic nature.
Megan M.: Should it be okay for friends to share sexual or questionable experiences? Should it be normal for friends who are both the same or not the same sex to share intimate interactions or bath together?
Me: The right thing to do would be to avoid any form of arousal that could lead to sexual intent or indecent behavior. However, controversially I believe perhaps with moral personal boundaries, sincerity, proper self-discipline, personal comfort or consent it should perhaps be okay. By this I mean, I think maybe it should be allowed if both individuals respect and do not over step their personal boundaries or positions of what is consensual. For example, bathing with each other and washing each other's backs. However, if they do over step their boundaries and it becomes sexual I personally believe it should be limited to touch or oral activity only. It's my belief that penetration should be reserved strictly for marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment