Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Ask me about Philosophy

  1. #21
    Senior Saiko's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Saiko
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    I'm willing to grant that all action in the universe is not entirely determined and that at a subatomic level action is indeterminable. However I think in regards to the concept of freewill, saying that our action of the "self' if one were to grant it, are not determined, because by that point it is the sum of basic physical function and the space in quantum physics doesn't really say that it is thought or will of the mind self which is putting these changes into effect.

    So right, things don't have to be determined at all points in the universe, I can accept randomness, I am just saying human action is determined by biologic function, and I wouldn't want us to fall into a trap of equivocation thinking that random particle interaction is the same as free willed thought.
    Weeee! We agree! \o/
    (although I see a lot of studying I need to do...)

    Also, your friends were right. You'll make for an excellent educator. :3

  2. #22
    If someone like Ayn Rand is a philosopher, why the fuck should any sane, rational, productive person waste their precious (and dwindling) time on this earth taking seriously anything said by anyone who claims to be a philosopher?

  3.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #23
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf-Bone View Post
    If someone like Ayn Rand is a philosopher, why the fuck should any sane, rational, productive person waste their precious (and dwindling) time on this earth taking seriously anything said by anyone who claims to be a philosopher?
    Cause she isn't.
    At best, at the very best she danced with the ghost of political philosophy but even then...eh.

    She's a philosopher the way Malcolm Gladwell is a scientist.

    The only thing I actually like from her is a scathing referral of people as "the bastard children of Kant." course she means it in a nasty negative way to attack a complete misunderstanding of Kantian ethics, but I like to lovingly describe my own work in the same way when attempting to label the current Moral judgement norms of the american public.

    but i'm rambling. Rand isn't a philosopher, I dunno if she ever referred to herself as such, but she is a political commentator akin to Upton Sinclair, and I'm making the association on purpose because I'm sure she'd hate the association.

  4. #24
    Heretic! FlynnCoyote's Avatar


    Weasyl
    FlynnCoyote
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    248
    It is my belief that there is no universal moral standard. I have brought this up several times with philosophy students and they have all claimed I was wrong.

    What is your opinion on this?
    * * *
    We'll find a reason, or else realize that we don't need one.

  5.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #25
    Retired Staff Frank LeRenard's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MLR
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Land of the Finns
    Posts
    439
    What's your opinion of this concept called The Singularity (courtesy of Ray Kurzweil)?

  6.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #26
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by FlynnCoyote View Post
    It is my belief that there is no universal moral standard. I have brought this up several times with philosophy students and they have all claimed I was wrong.

    What is your opinion on this?
    I think you're wrong :V

    No, in a more academic answer. First and foremost there needs to be an established difference between is and ought. What is a physical reality of human behavior versus the ideal ought. "Is" is pretty much the naturalist approach, we only have whatever it is people do, so it's perfectly fine to be a liar or whatever because that's what we do.
    Well there's philosophical meta ethics reasons why this is a poor idea, but in another matter I find these sort of arguments riddled with poor logic and ad hoc reasoning to defend action. There's a lot of "evolutionary psychology says x, so we do x and x is right" well no, Evo Psych isn't the golden ticket, it's a lot of assumption and making up reasoning as you connect A and B but don't realize C exists.

    There is also the point that, while you have a universal standard not everyone has to meet that standard all the time for it to still be the standard. I have a universal standard for answers on a quiz, not everyone will answer the quiz correctly.

    So ought, we ought to have a universal moral reason in part because it applies better to the society and creates a better standard to establish how procedure may be applied. A naturalist approach to bioethics sounds utterly insane.

    What that universal is depends, there is the argument for Mills utilitarianism, or Berkeley as a better example, because Mill is building a better mousetrap. There's also Neo kantianism which sets up the categorical imperitives.

    Personally I think the best option is neo kantian approaches, particularly the imperitive of universal application and not using someone as a means to an end.

    Back to the "is" part. I spend a lot of time doing experimental philosophy in regards to ethics and moral judgements. What research has found is that while a lot of low impact decisions have a large variety of answers, high impact issues actually have a fairly uniform universal concept attached. Research has found sociopaths are indistinguishable to neurotypical individuals when answering high impact moral judgement vignettes. Even vastly different cultures will express some form of the universal.

    So take "do not use a moral agent as a means to an end" a moral agent is one that has the capability and responsibility to make moral judgements. So a toddler is not a moral agent, your cat is not one, you are (presumably). I can not, under this, kill you.
    In cannibalistic society, clearly people are being used, but note that often there is a ceremonious application. It is not wanton destruction but careful selection and very specific reasoning to keep the society alive. In cannibalism it is much needed protein. In the aztec culture it was to keep the sun rising each morning, which obviously is not true, but that doesn't matter for now.

    Pretty much the universal reason FOR killing people in a way that society accepts is either, they lose status as a moral agent (if they impede the rights of others by trying to kill people or harm them for instance) or for utilitarian reasons.

    That is the standard for a lot of humans in my research, a strange bastard combination of utilitarian kantianism is the IS, the OUGHT is Kantian, utilitarian, whatever you can meta ethically argue is most appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank LeRenard View Post
    What's your opinion of this concept called The Singularity (courtesy of Ray Kurzweil)?
    Is this the one which says there will be a point where human life is inseparable from technology?

  7.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #27
    Sophomore Matt's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Matt
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Ypsilanti
    Posts
    409
    Hi Fay. How are you? Two questions not counting that last one:

    1) What's the difference between a person and, say, a chair?
    2) Same question, but what if that chair is made of people?
    Look at all the fun we're having.

  8.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #28
    Retired Staff Frank LeRenard's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MLR
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Land of the Finns
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    Is this the one which says there will be a point where human life is inseparable from technology?
    Pretty much, yeah.

  9. #29
    What are some good books on philosophy that I might be able to find at my local library?

  10. #30
    Senior Ley's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Ley
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    o-hey-o
    Posts
    140
    d;you think philosophy is something that should be commonplace in society, like math or history?


 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •