The Longest Post in the History of Ubersite (4256 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.52 on 210 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Razor <Jeremy_21117.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-08-05 01:54:15 EDT
I think. A lot. Maybe too much.
I think about statistics that only God would know, I wonder why the universe has gone to the bother of existing at all, and I occasionally ponder the inarguable finality of a flatulent retort.
I noticed recently that I'm the 2nd most viewed author on this site.
Don't worry, I'm not that impressed either. It did occur to me tonight, however, that I can write something and a lot of people will read it for that reason if nothing else.
So I'm going to write something here. In fact, I'm going to write a lot. About my entire take on the universe. (Editor's note: I didn't get to say everything I wanted, not by a longshot, but it's 2 AM and I've got to be bright eyed and busy tailed in a few hours for a meeting. So here's eight glowing pages of bullshit according to Microsoft Word.) If you're not in the mood to read a really really long post, where I talk about a whole lot of shit that's going to make anyone with a short attention span want to slit their wrists, then rate this -2 and be on your way.
Still there? OK, let's begin...
Some will find, no doubt, that I laboriously explore things that were first said hundreds of years ago. I beg your indulgence for the undergrad philosophy recap, for it leads eventually to things that I want to talk about and for the sake of continuity I do not wish to jump into the middle and proceed with reckless abandon to the beginning like Descartes. I will give credit where credit is due for ideas that are not my own. If I say something that someone else has said without realizing it, it is an "original" idea that happens to coincide with what others have said who I haven't had the pleasure of reading. Let me know. I'd probably like their work.
I may also offend your sensibilities by paraphrasing these great men. I want people who are genuinely interested in this kind of thing but who lack the background to be able to follow me along on this journey. And for the record, I apologize for any usage of the male pronoun. It's just easiest that way.
I'm going to start with Rene Descartes, and hopefully choosing that as my starting point will make sense by the time I'm done.
Descartes felt that metaphysics depended on epistemology. That is to say, he was interested in the nature of the universe, but in order to know the nature of the universe, he felt that he had to understand, completely, how he could know anything at all.
For example, it is entirely possible that two men, both intelligent and well learned, might disagree on the nature of something. One might say that there is a god. Another might disagree. They cannot both be right, a thing cannot be "A" and "Not A". And yet both hold their opinions as a belief.
Now, Descartes wondered, what if I had been brought up by one of these men, and not the other? Would I not believe as I had been taught? Do we not all believe, at least to some extent, things that are explained to us as fact?
Given that, is it not likely that I do in fact hold beliefs that are not actually true? How can I be sure of anything? Is there anything I can know?
Descartes used an analogy here, but I am going to use a different, more modern one.
Remember the movie The Matrix? The fundamental concept behind that movie is that the reality with which people are presented is in fact not reality. They are being fed sensory input by computer programs that link directly into their brain.
The reason that this concept is so exciting is that in the back of your mind you have to admit that it is possible, however unlikely, that YOU are in The Matrix, or something like it. It's possible. It's possible that everything you think is real is in fact an elaborate deception. The reason for the deception does not even matter.
Descartes used the analogy of a deceiving demon, but he lived in a Christian world in which computers did not exist.
Anyway, is it not possible? I must confess that it is.
I might die, and discover upon death that the Bible is literally true. I might reach heaven, pass through the pearly gates, and request an audience with God. God might grant it, and then grant my request for complete and total understanding of the Universe. Given that understanding, I would still have to admit, however unlikely, that I was somehow being deceived.
So is it in fact possible for me to know anything at all?
Yes, said Descartes. Yes there is.
I think. I exist. There is something that is me. Some might call it a soul, others would scoff at the terminology. But the fact remains, deceived or no, there is some kind of self aware entity that is me.
As far as I am concerned, this is the axis about which all philosophy swings. Everything is either before or after Descartes.
I am not entirely sure he was right. I think I exist. I suppose I could even be wrong about that, but if I am, there is nowhere left to go. I am the dream of a butterfly. I guess that "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
I'm going to assume Descartes was right, anyway.
Moving right along, I am going to freely mix the ideas of the enlightenment philosophers who followed Descartes with the atheistic existentialists. I don't agree with everything that they said, but this is going to be a sort of synthesis (where did I borrow THAT word from) of their ideas. I'm going to dive right into the axiological (the branch of ethics) implications of Descartes' work. Along the way, I'll also be forced into metaphysics.
If I cannot be sure that there is a God, even if I am taken before Him, then how do I know what is right and what is wrong? Religions claim to base their morals on the ideas of right and wrong handed down from a higher power. But I cannot just adopt these, as I must acknowledge the possibility that no higher power exists.
It might be just us.
But I am not an atheist. I was five years ago, but then I realized that denying the POSSIBILITY of a higher power makes no more sense than denying the POSSIBILITY that it doesn't exist. I will delve into this further, but at the moment it is a tributary of the river I am traveling down, and I need to find my way back down the main path.
Read this carefully. It's important.
There is NO external source that I can possibly rely on. Nothing and nobody can tell me what is right and what is wrong. In fact, it would seem that the words themselves are useless in an absolute sense.
This is a bit of a stunner. If there is no absolute right and wrong of which I can know, how do I decide what is right and wrong? And of what practical use is all this, anyway? Why the fuck do I get up on a Tuesday morning and go to work? Can I stop off at Starbucks and drink coffee made with the blood of exploited South Americans while wearing Nike apparel stitched together in a sweatshop?
Actually, the answer to the last question is yes. If there is nobody to tell me what is right and wrong, I must decide for myself. I am right and wrong. I am good and bad. Everything is relative, because I cannot know the absolute truth.
While this is ultimate freedom, the other side of the coin is of course responsibility. I have nobody but myself to blame. If I decide what is right and wrong, I am ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING in my life.
Don't confuse me here. I cannot control whether you quit reading this post at this instant or not. What I CAN control is how I feel about it and how I choose to react. I can believe whatever I want.
For the first time so far, I'd like to add an actual thought of my own. About time I suppose, I'm up to page four in the Word document I'm typing this in.
What I have realized is that not only CAN every human being choose what belief structure to adopt, every human being DOES choose what belief structure to adopt, whether they realize it or not. I myself am making the conscious decision to try and reason things out. Some people make the choice to adopt completely what they are taught, but they are still making that choice.
To further drive in the point, consider a time in your life when you have been extremely emotionally distraught. Perhaps someone close to you died. Maybe your daddy didn't buy you the BMW you wanted. Whatever. You go through the motions of life, eating the food, but only peripherally aware of it. But... you're still making the choice to eat, even if you aren't paying attention.
It is all choice. I choose to smoke. I can claim addiction all I want, in the end the ultimate responsibility for the cigarette I am smoking while I'm writing this lies not with Philip Morris, but with me. It doesn't taste so good all of a sudden.
There are some implications to this. It means that in the end the Hitlers of this earth are just as justified as the next guy. Does this mean that I think that Hitler was a good person? Do I think that he is okay?
Hell no. This is where it gets tricky. It's possible to hold the belief that Hitler was right. It's also possible to hold the belief that Hitler was dead fucking wrong. It's also possible to hold the belief that you should spend your life convincing others that Hitler was dead fucking wrong, and to wipe the opposing viewpoint off the earth completely.
Who am I to fucking judge you say? Me, that's fucking who. I am the center of my universe, and I am free to judge, because I am the Ultimate Arbiter of morality.
By the way, so are you.
A lot of people seem to find this terribly depressing. If you ask me, it's because their logic is not sound.
They look at the universe, and they say "There's no meaning to any of this. Boy, that really sucks."
Can't you see the contradiction? If there is no meaning, how can it possibly suck? YOU ARE CHOOSING TO MAKE IT SUCK. YOU. YOUR CHOICE. Frankly, I look at this and see it as an amazing opportunity. I can be happy or sad if I want. I look at depressed people, and I want to pound this shit into their head with a jackhammer.
But how can I figure out what beliefs to hold? That's a tough question. If you're trying to have an organized approach to things, you have to step back and figure out where to start. I'm going to assume that there is such a thing as truth, even though I cannot and never will know what it is.
To help me out with this, I am going to lean on Emmanuel Kant. Kant said that there IS a way that things are, knowable or not. He called these truths "noumena." Let's be clear. They are unknowable.
Kant coined another term. You know it pretty well, although it doesn't quite mean what most people think it means. Phenomena. Phenomena are the things that SEEM to be going on.
While we cannot make any comment about noumena, phenomena present us with an infinite range of opportunities.
As long as you remember that the in the end it could all be a huge pile of horseshit, you can make judgments about the world as best you can through what you can see, taste, hear, and reason out.
This is the basis of empirical science.
I know that a lot of people like to rag on empirical science. It raises more questions than it answers. This is not a contradiction. It is not proof that the system does not work. As we enhance our collective understanding of phenomena, it only makes sense that we have ever more questions.
Consider the graph of 1/X. As X increases, Y gets closer and closer to zero. Yet, as math teachers love to point out, there are an infinite number of reals between Y and 0.
You have to model things. The closer your model gets to predicting what is going on around you, the better it is. I know that a lot of you are starting to yawn and say that you heard all this in high school physics, but damn it this is where the logical basis for the scientific method comes from.
And it works. In case you hadn't noticed, you're reading this on a computer. Unless of course you printed it out. But that's not the point.
Look all around you. We've got microchips, artificial hearts, and Viagra.
The more accurately we model the phenomena of the universe, the closer we come to noumena.
This is what drives me crazy about idealism. Let me say right now that I was an idealist for most of my life. Hell, I believed in communism a few years ago. I've been trying for the most part to write this essay without referencing Ubersite, in case I ever publish it somewhere else. But I have to stop right now and thank Yidele. He helped me see that you can be so caught up in SHOULD that you pay no attention to what your model is telling you.
My sister is an idealist. They have a good idea of what SHOULD BE, but they frequently fail to model what IS. Because they do not have a good model for what IS, they cannot provide a map from IS to SHOULD BE.
So I guess I've become a tempered idealist. Do I think that no kid should ever have to go hungry? You damn right I do. But I recognize that they DO go hungry, and that it is because of the complexities of the world, and that if we are to ever free the entirety of mankind from hunger, we have to consider how to best modify the current situation. And that means understanding it.
I think I'll go off on another tangent for a bit. I think that evolution is the best model yet proposed for explaining how we all got here in the first place. But I think that the majority of people who believe in evolution don't really understand it.
They make a crucial mistake. I hear people talk about survival all the time like it was some kind of grand design. Life was not trying to survive originally. The thing is, only the stuff that DID survive passed on their code to future generations.
Consider this. You've got four guys sitting around. There is one slice of pizza. If three of them aren't hungry, and the fourth guy is, he's going to be the one to eat the pizza. Not that he was meant to eat the pizza, there's no greater cause here, it's just how it's going to shake out. Now assume I show up and say "Only people who happen to have eaten pizza can pass through this door." The one guy passes through, and the others don't. It just happened to happen that way.
Gradually, over time, so many things that were actually trying to survive did that it became an instinctive thing in its successors.
A major benefit of this is that sex is really fun. Right now, firefly is sitting on our bed, reading Harry Potter and is probably wondering why we're not having sex. Sorry honey, I have needed to get this shit out on paper for a long time now.
I'm done with that tangent.
I want to address a new question now.
Why do people do bad things? I hear people ask this all the time.
The first answer is, they're not really doing bad things. They are doing things that you yourself define as bad. This, however, is oversimplified. How can people do things like kill other human beings? It doesn't seem to make sense.
The best way for me to illustrate this is to tell a story about a conversation I had with some friends recently.
We were talking about the Israel/Palestine situation, and one of my friends said that violence was never the answer. I disagreed. She asked me how I could possibly say that, how I could possibly justify hurting another human being.
The way I see it, it comes down to making the choices about what is right and wrong for you. You have to have your priorities outlined.
Let me give you an example. To me, the life of my daughter is more important than your life. If you were threatening my daughter, and I was given the choice of killing you or letting you kill her, I would kill you. Kill you bad. I wouldn't hesitate.
You know something else? I'd kill my own daughter if the circumstances were right. If she was about to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a crowded city, I would shoot her right in the head. I'd probably kill myself afterwards, because I wouldn't be able to live with having done that, but I'd do it.
You know what else? I'd nuke a city if everyone in it was contaminated with some kind of fatal Stephen King end of the world virus.
In fact, I'd destroy all of humanity if it meant preserving life on earth. I'd destroy the earth if it meant saving the universe.
If you think that peace is the ultimate goal, then you have to be prepared to give everything else up. Freedom, love, you name it. Because if every human being was locked in a cell and robots fed us meals and we never saw each other, you'd have peace then. And you wouldn't be able to complain, because peace is your highest priority.
You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. If you aren't, then you don't truly believe in it.
Am I saying that you should kill someone who is going for the same movie as you at Blockbuster? No, but I'd kill you if there was only enough food for one of us to survive.
And frankly, that's not as bad as it sounds. That killer instinct has helped humanity to the top of the food chain, it's the reason people invest in 401K plans, and it's the reason capitalism works pretty well.
People will act in the interest of their own survival. This doesn't mean that capitalism is the end all be all of human economics. It does mean that the drive for survival and comfort goes a long way to explain why the world is the way it is.
In fact, let me send a shout out to humanity real quick. We're really the first species on earth (as far as I know) to actually step back and say that maybe we should figure out a way that we can win that doesn't involve killing off all the competition. Ask the lioness if she'll share her meal (or by extension, pay taxes). See how far you get.
We as a species have done a remarkable job with sharing. I know someone is inevitably going to talk about ant colonies or some such. Those ants have little to no individuality. Human beings have struck a really remarkable balance between sharing and individual needs.
But it only makes sense. In fact, this is the basis of human lawmaking. Quite simply, a group of human beings will stick together because it increases the likelihood of survival. There have to be ground rules when you work together with someone, and those ground rules should benefit everyone.
This only makes sense. Kant calls it the universal principle or something, I don't feel like going and looking it up. I think it is also called the "Golden Rule." When it comes time to make a decision, ask yourself, "If everyone did the same thing I am about to do, what would happen?" I cannot murder, because I do not want to be murdered. I cannot steal, because if everyone stole, nobody would have anything except what could be taken by force.
So... where the hell am I? I don't know anything. Except that I exist. I think. Everything else is hogwash, icing on the cake, shit that I am making up and choosing to believe.
It's made me a lot happier to realize this. It's allowed me to understand people who hold beliefs that are anathema to me. I don't accept them, but it makes sense to me that people act the way they do. I have a better model than I used to. And frankly, understanding things better makes me more comfortable, the world around me makes a lot more sense than it used to.
I have a basis for my metaphysical understanding of the universe. I rely on the scientific method. Does this mean that I don't believe in God or whatever? Nope. I have to acknowledge that God might exist. For that matter, Zeus might exist, and he might be rather annoyed that we got sidetracked with this whole JHVH thing. Maybe mice really are ultra dimensional beings performing experiments on us. But the best I can do is stick with what seems to work.
I am free. The choices that I make are mine to make and mine only. I choose how to feel.
And I'm in a damn good mood.
If you've read this far, frankly I'm amazed. Maybe I haven't told you anything you don't already know. If this is the case, rock on. Further my thinking. Lay some shit on me I haven't figured out yet. Point out some major holes in my arguments. Stick up your middle finger. Fart and have a sip of your coffee.
This post will probably get six replies, and three of them will probably be mine. So what? I'm not attached, I wrote this as much to see the words appear on the screen as I did in the hopes that anyone else will read and care.
I wonder what I'll think of all this in ten years.
User Reviews
Submitted by QuietObservation (user info) at 2007-08-30 01:15:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Same kind of shit I think about all the time. You got further though. Post more of this.
Submitted by Wuzi (user info) at 2007-08-29 23:44:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
3rd time i've read this.
Still intrigued.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-07-21 00:24:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i think it's missing something...
maybe if this was lengthened...
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-07-21 00:05:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This will probably get 6 reviews?
Certainly not.
Submitted by littledan (user info) at 2005-07-20 23:55:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
not the longest post... i think my copy and pasting of the legend of the rocket car is. http://www.ubersite.com/m/16521
Submitted by Mr.JackassFrost (user info) at 2005-02-02 19:36:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That has got to be the most amazing, thought out post I have ever read on this website. It got me thinking and I applaud thee for that.
Good show.
Submitted by drfeggphd (user info) at 2005-01-21 11:50:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes Comment
Submitted by checkyourmail (user info) at 2005-01-14 03:23:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-12-30 04:33:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wrote something similar once. It went along the lines of I know nothing because everything I know was taught to me by somebody who knows nothing, who had it taught to them by someone who knows nothing.
First man on earth knew nothing and all knowledge was passed down right, unless of course some bunch of aliens randomly through history pumped a little knowledge into our skull for a laugh to see what would happen.
Submitted by Ed_0150 (user info) at 2004-12-30 03:13:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've seen longer
Submitted by stevie_says (user info) at 2004-12-30 02:39:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Psssh I can write a longer one.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2004-12-30 02:28:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Mentor (user info) at 2004-08-19 18:39:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like this post, but I have to say this: when one thinks about it, really long and really hard, this entire concept that you have realized is mental and emotional detachment. You step back, put all biases aside, and really examine the situation. You realize WHAT it is that you're looking at. You think about what it SHOULD be, and then you think about what IS between the two to get from what IS to what SHOULD be. (My point isn't made yet. Just making a new paragraph)
You make a point about religions. It sounds like you have a thing against religions, but, in the spirit of emotional detachment, we can say that you don't. You're just analyzing religion for what it is. I have one point to make, and this is it. This has all been building up to this. Thanks for listening.
Buddhism. Seriously, dude, you just plagiarized Buddhism itself. Strip down all your explanations, throw away your quotes, take the bare bones of your argument and you have Buddhism, plain and simple (which, ironically, is the title of a very very good book on Buddhism. Look it up).
I agree with everything you said because I happen to believe it too. I just haven't seen it displayed as eloquently and logically as you have put it. But the difference is that I hold it as a faith. As a belief. I KNOW what I BELIEVE because it is, as you put it, my choice. The difference between my belief and the belief of others is that I have objectively looked at what IS and what SHOULD be, and see Buddhism as the bridge between.
Good work, good work.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2004-07-16 16:27:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BAM! rating 200!
I still like this post.
Submitted by Uberfuck (user info) at 2004-07-16 16:25:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That was the most intelligent that thing I have ever read on the Internet. I really liked your touching on the conflcting doctrines of realism and idealism. I too have found it hard to shake off idealist beliefs, but in the end have learned to accept "what is" over "what should be".
In any event, thank you for enlightening the masses (at least those of us with significant attenion spans)
Submitted by spedmonkey (user info) at 2004-07-16 16:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think we've actually had longer posts by now.
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2004-07-16 16:07:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WHEW!!!!!
11 months later I finally finished it.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-09 11:35:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. I have so much to say about this but I lack the ability to make a coherent read.
I have trouble believing in anything these days so I try to keep an open mind for both sides.
If something can't be proved but it also cannot be DISproved ,well, then it is possible
if not probable. If that makes sense.
I wonder if it's like that movie with Jim Carrey "Truman Show" (?) Is this my test?
Am I the star in all of this and everyone else is there as extras?
Or maybe I am an extra in someone else's test? Am I Job and God is testing me?
Or what if the sole pupose of my existance is to directly or indirectly affect someone
else's life?
Who's to say that's not how it is? It can be neither proved nor disproved. It is possible
although unlikely.
Now, I have read this and I could be wrong but if energy can neither be created
nor destroyed and we are made of energy then where does it go when we die? Is that our soul?
I am the star and the world is my stage... Is that Shakespeare?
Wow. You got me thinking and I hate doing that.
Submitted by Sacrew (user info) at 2004-04-28 22:38:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nah, the longest post is that asshole who posted the entirety of "The Great Gatsby".
Don't know if it's deleted, or what.
Good post.
Submitted by Pacifist248 (user info) at 2004-04-24 13:25:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-04-23 14:17:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah it can change brain chemistry. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, Panic Disorder, Dissociative Disorders, even some Obsessive-Compulsive disorders, can all be caused by rape (or any trauma actually). There are more, but that's my personal little cocktail of neurosis. :o)
What actually happens is that during the trauma your brain freaks out, causing either a jump or stop in the production/distibution of the chemical serotonin. After the trauma is over, some people's brains are unable to re-regulate the chemical. It is this imbalance that causes the afore mentioned illnesses. To correct them, you have to take some sort of SSRI (serotonin stabalizer) such as Prosac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, etc... I'm sure you've seen the commercials... Some people also have to take mood stabilizers or rage inhibiters as well.
A lot of it depends on the degree of trauma, what age you were when it happened, if it's happened more than once, what kind of trauma (IE- survivors of child abuse generally suffer from VERY prominant Dissociation, while Rape victims generally have more intense Depression).
What you described about the car thing is what's called a trigger. Seeing the car get to close to the one in front of it causes a flashback (in your case it seems more like a subconcious flashback) of the car accident. Your body remembers and reacts.
If you have ever seen a movie about a Vietnam Vet most likely they demonstrated what a concious flashback is like, where the person for a few minutes is actually re-living the war, they think they are really there, and can't see/hear the actual reality around them. Many Vietnam vets have PTSD.(And other wars too, but it wasn't recognized as a diagnosis before Vietnam.)
The hyper-sensitivity that you mentioned is exactly what you should do. :o) Aren't you lucky. It takes some of us a LOT of therapy to learn to do that.
Thank you for your sorry, but I am doing OK. It happened awhile ago and I am on the road to healing. Usually I don't even trigger much anymore, except when assholes do stuff like that "shitfuck's" recent post. Moron. Ugh.
Anyways, hehe, I'm sure you don't actually care about any of that, but I am one of those people who researches everything that happens in their lives. When I was pregnant I read EVERY book ever published about it... hehehe...
But anyways, you got another +2 out of it, so no harm no foul, eh?
Submitted by vergedor (user info) at 2004-04-23 12:45:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You are not alone. I used to think a lot about these questions. All the fucking time. I studied philosophers and scientists and debated and debated and debated and changed my mind a few dozens of time. Your post reminds me a lot of my own reflexions.
I was tormented by the problems of philosophy until the 1st of july 1996. I had a incredible experience when suddenly, the obsession for the truth was replaced by an obsession for happiness. I won't go into the details of the experience because it would be too long and most people would accuse me of lying or comitting a sacrilege or simply would not understand. Following that experience, I also realized that any theory on reality that I would hold as an absolute truth is just a measure of my vanity. I don't feel the need to be as accurate, right or knowlegeable anymore. I am less tormented.
If you like to think a lot. I suggest that you read "Gödel, Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid" from Douglas Hofstadter. Probably the best book ever written, including the quran and the Bible.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-04-23 12:17:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree and acknowledge that brain chemistry and physcial conditions can change things.
You have to look no further than someone suffering from severe brain damage or a child with Down Syndrome to see that.
My comments are more directed towards those who do not have damaged brains, if that makes sense.
The good news is that empirical science makes advances every day, and our understanding of the brain grows. One day, these problems will be handled as easily as a hang nail.
I am sorry that you were raped. I've never heard of it causing actual changes in brain chemistry, but I'm hardly an expert in that field, so I don't know what to say.
Although I do, to a degree, acknowledge what you're talking about. I was in a car accident when someone else was driving, and now when I ride with other people (for the last six-seven years) if they are following too close to someone, I find my hands bracing for impact, even though I know it doesn't make any sense.
However, understanding that I have that hardwired reaction that I don't want allows me to see when I am reacting like that, and correct it. I'm hyper-aware of it if you know what I mean.
I don't know if that is of any help.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-04-23 12:10:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. Ok first thing. That was a fabulous post.
Second thing, I didn't read all the replies, so yeah, repeating is a possiblity.
Ok...
I think a lot of what you said it interesting, and possibly dead-on. However, I have a hard time buying the whole "Things suck because you make it that way." (I forgot to cut and paste, but you know what I mean.)
Let me explain why. I used to be a happy, healthy, normal girl. All my life growing up, intelligent, popular, well-adjusted. You name it, that was me.
Then something happened to me that was completely out of my control. I was raped. (Gosh, I have only been coming here for three days and I have said this in about a billion posts... bare with me, it's a life changing event... it effects everything...)
After it happened... I lost everything. The terror and pain and violation and trauma actually more or less shorted out my brain. It no longer works correctly.
Am I depressed? You bet! Can I help it? No way. I am also now plagued with an instinctual fear of all men. Why? Because my amygdala (the part of your brain that controls stuff like "take your hand off the flaming stove, moron" etc.) Has been programmed to think Men=Pain. That happened without me doing anything. And it is something I can't stop. When someone jumps out at you that you weren't expecting, you startle. You can't help it. You don't do it on purpose. You couldn't have controlled it if you tried. It's programmed in your synapses.
The way I act, the way I see things now (which has cost me a lot of friends and my fiance) are directly because of the rape. I cannot help them. I cannot just decide "All men are safe." Or even "Most men are safe." I cannot change my outlook there by just deciding I want to. I cannot just decide "I am happy." Because the serotonin levels in my head will not allow it. Even though they used to be normal, they are not now.
What I can do, is take medication to try to fix them. But that doesn't mean I am happy. It means I am sedated, more or less. If I stopped the meds I am on, I would go right back to where I was a few years ago.
I mean, it's just like if you broke your spine. You'd be paralyzed below the break. And you could not just decide "I can walk." and expect to be able to do it.
Emotions are not some obscure thing no one can understand and no one knows where they come from. They are just chemical reactions in your brain to programmed stimuli. Some of the programs you are born with. IE- when someone dies you feel sad. Some you learn. IE- making him happy makes me happy because I love him. And some are forced on you during your life. IE- Boys are bad. (in my case)
Basically, some things such because they do. And you could not react differently no matter what you tried to do. See if your body will let you keep your hand an a hot stove. Your hand will pull away without you trying to do it. Because getting burned sucks. Why? Because it does, Not because you let it suck.
Your argument makes a lot of sense... but it ignores brain chemistry and natural reactions etc.
Submitted by ohlookasquirrel (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:43:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ha, phew razor.
I have dibs on it then...
::furtively glances around then runs away::
Submitted by Philst82 (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:39:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Intelligently written, and very interesting, not to mention an awesome waste of 15 minutes.
But that is far too involved for a fridayt afternoon. I need a beer.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:39:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
squirrel, I don't think that anyone at the Yale admissions office has read this.
If I'm wrong, please contact me, as I would love to finish my BA there.
Submitted by ohlookasquirrel (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:31:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Who dredged this up?
"I am the center of my universe"
I hate you Jeremy, for the mere fact that I was going to use
that very sentence in my college admissions essay for Yale.
Mine was actually going to say "I am the center of my own universe
but still.
Damn good post though. Sigh, I was lying, I can't hate you.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:19:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
holy shit. this old chestnut.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2004-04-23 11:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. Just, wow. I don't really feel like adding anything to this. My theory is that everything is a matter of perception, and it's pretty close to your theories. So I don't feel the need to add anything, other than this is the kind of stuff me and TaK talk about all the time. I didn't think anybody but us felt a similar way.
Submitted by kibo at 2003-12-18 16:04:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
well razor, you don't know me but I know you...
i think you will be hearing a lot from me.
we have much to discuss
Submitted by the_3_toed_sloth (user info) at 2003-11-16 17:07:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, i should've come here a long time ago...hopefully i wont just be yelling into the wind (ok, bad metaphor) and someone will reply to me...but i guess i may as well chuck in my two cents here, for what they are worth (thanks razor...you've put me in the mood where i cant even say that without streaming off in a tangent!)..
Ok, since i read a bunch of replies, ill start with something which annoyed my sense of 'right'..Gbusman saying "FACT: Life cannot exist in anything less complex than a single cell". After all that has been said, it is amazing how sure of this FACT you are! I guess im thinking of an Isaac Asimov story right now, where we finally reach Mars (or was it Venus? Anyway..). To cut this short, they find life!...but end up killing it off by accidentally introducing Earth bacteria. How does it destroy the planets life? By actually being incredibly more complex, having had millions of years of evolution under their belts. Your basic assumption seems to be that the only evolution that has taken place is that multicellular organisms have come from unicellular, and grown increasingly complex...so, what, have the unicellular organisms stayed the same all this time? How sure are you that there has been nothing before? Does survival of the fittest not only fit for these organisms, but lead to the idea that the original organisms are probably long dead?
Evolution has never really been a point to doubt for me, as superficial as that sounds. I look at the fossils slowly changing to form the Homo Erectus skull, and i just cant argue other than we evolved. Did God take a few practice shots before he found the human he desired? Somehow that model of God doesn't work for me...You know, a friend of mine once said that the meaning of the universe is simply to reduce the equation, till all the energy (ahem, exergy) is lost. I was dumbfounded, but shaken. What exactly do you say to that? Does it not make a certain bleak sense, that humans have found ever-better ways to expend energy? Does the more complex organism not succeed better at this than the less complex? The problem for me was ive always determined 'reason' as 'what will happen'...can it be that i truly am 'Free', free to decide where we are all moving as a race (or simply where i move until death)? Again, i cannot reconcile true 'freedom' with my concept of God...if God truly did create all this (Hey, im only human and can only define what i can perceive...dont try tell me you dont try define the 'origin' of the universe in terms of this, because i just wont believe you...we search for a beginning because our perception demands it!), then did he not have some intention on how it would turn out, especially if we are made in his image (for those millions of years of evolution to randomly turn out in his image is a stretch of the imagination...do all planets hold humans in his image?)?
The idea that we are somehow being guided...look, i know people will balk at me bringing up fate, but how can you not? Its integral to so much...if there is a path, whether for humanity or just for me, then that inherently means that certain events or actions must happen, which reduces CHOICE. If i cannot be certain that my CHOICE is entirely my own, then how can i 'think therefore i am'? I could just be a puppet...my awareness could just be a function of my life sequence, and not of Life, in the higher sense. Tell me, if life wholely evolved, independent of God, then does it not follow that all the conditions and circumstances and laws of the universe all conspired to bring everything to these events? Could it not follow that 'thought' is simply the only available course of events? Ok, i guess theres flaws in that, namely CHOICE...but why are we better than animals in this respect, better than mere bacteria? Is God the desire for there to be yet something 'higher' up than us?
Im rambling a bit now, so ill try end this...but not before i say a few words about morality. Basically, i shun the idea that i only think something is wrong because i am conditioned to think that way. I really care how exactly you define it, if you can at all, but i dont just do something for personal advancement, nor because it will directly make others happy. I do some things only because I think that its the way things should be done...and being the idealist i am, i believe that there must be a path between IS and SHOULD BE. And i think that often the best way is to lead by example. I cannot force you to accept that smoking is evil. But i do think that if i dont smoke (because personally i do hate the habit) then maybe someone else will question why they should (and if you do question, then why the hell would you smoke?). Ok, ive said too much, and rambled far too much, so ill finish now...<cough>
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2003-10-12 04:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. I used to just have a headache, and I was content that I'm simply mad at the world. But now I'm on the bonus plan! I know WHY I hate the world.
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2003-10-04 09:11:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
On my way.
Submitted by Semi_Random_Joe (user info) at 2003-08-19 18:00:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That kid is so lovely.
Submitted by Maleficus (user info) at 2003-08-19 17:34:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
dude i am 15 and ive been thinking all this shit myself for a couple years now
and sometimes i get so confused thinking of it all
Submitted by AIRKP (user info) at 2003-08-10 18:31:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Great post. I do have one thing to say and I don't really know if it is contradictory to what your post says but here goes. If we are indeed the center of our own universe than the only thing that we cannot see in full is ourselves. This means that others can see us and understand us better than we can. Sometimes when you really screw up you look back on it and say what was I thinking or whatever. If this is the case than someone who was watching you could tell you what you were thinking and understand your decision better than you could yourself. I don't know if that makes sense at all but think of yourself as a nucleus in an atom, all you can see are electrons.
Submitted by beautiful_disaster (user info) at 2003-08-10 05:23:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And another thing...Choice is HIGHLY overrated in my opinion. It's all chain reaction. One choice you make affects someone else's decision, or choice. It's all fucked if you really think about it. The choices you make pave the way. The guy who chooses to eat the pizza gets to go through the door. If you hadn't choose to come in at the moment he wouldn't have gotten the chance. You see what I'm trying to say?
But it always boils down to the fact that I don't really know the universal "truths" of life. I don't know shit really.
I cuss a lot when I'm thinkin'.
Submitted by beautiful_disaster (user info) at 2003-08-10 05:07:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I think. A lot. Maybe too much."
How fucking amazing is that? I've said those exact words...to a pin. Sometimes I think so much that I start to wonder if I could actually die from over thinking (just kinda self-implode, you know?). Used to think I was the only person in the world who constantly gave themselves a migraine everyday from pondering useless shit. Thanks for the post.
As for what I think about the world? No one really knows anything about...ANYTHING really, and we're all going to die sometime. Live it up.
Submitted by thecrow.at.hotmail.com <alex> at 2003-08-09 23:58:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i bye fruit at the store
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-09 01:38:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now these are things that I am interested in, space-time, worm holes, black holes, relativity etc etc. Good fun.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-08 18:02:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
** "can anyone tell me how gravity works?" I know you've all heard about it and that a lot of scientific stuff is based on it. I know that it is a "fundamental force of nature," but I don't know HOW it works. Is it a magnetic thing? Particulate? Other? **
Good question itchy. For that matter, how does magnetism work? What is it that actually pulls opposing charges together? Little rubber bands? I have a feeling that some grand unifying theory that scientists have been searching for for centuries will be explained in the very near future. We're going to get gravity, magnetism, strong and weak forces all in one pretty little package. Something about space time distortion that will be way out of my comprehension. Hopefully someone will understand it and figure out how to make worm holes. I'm sick of flying on airlines, they suck.
-Bus
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-08 18:01:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Arsenal,
I agree, that WAS a good question by itchy.
If we figure that one out, we'll be able to investigate interstellar travel.
"Captain's log stardate......"
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-08 17:58:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
" Therefore, despite our best efforts to the contrary, even what we "know," we must take on faith. We BELIEVE that the current theory explains the phenomenon, but if we want to be intellectually honest we MUST ADMIT the POSSIBLITY that a better theory can be proposed"
You summed up the main thought that I was trying to get out right there.
Everything we "know" is faith. Faith in science, faith in God, or faith in one's own observations.
good reply
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-08 17:52:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like your question about gravity, I was thinking about that recently too. We all know it is the attraction between matter, but I don't think ANYONE knows why it happens.
Submitted by GDizzle <gdollar.at.charter.net> at 2003-08-08 17:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor - This is the best post I have read on ubersite.
Itchy - very good point. You've basically made everybody put their foot in their mouth. But hopefully people will realize that people's beliefs are nothing else than their opinions.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2003-08-08 17:22:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Back again with a few more thoughts.
First I have to confess that I didn't read this thread all the way back to my last post (not even sure I COULD, I think my computer is still trying to load the rest), but from what I have gathered, the topic has turned to subjects of knowledge and faith.
My previous take on Razor's post dealt primarily with subjective v. objective reality. Had I more stamina, I would have attempted to show how these correlate with those ideas we call "knowledge" and "faith."
In my earlier post, I noted that Descartes overlooked of failed to truly apply his own ideas to himself. Meaning, he set out doubting everything, but failed to doubt the one thing he thought he established as true. Razor DID do this. He expressed it nicely by saying, I think, I think and therefore I think I am. Or something along those lines.
Now, I am a doubter by nature, and I think that most people of my generation are as well (something I believe is a product of Descartes' work). So, we doubters are left trying to explain the world we live in after killing our idols so to speak. (Isn't that a Thrill Kill Cult thing?) We have established that all perception is subjective, and all we have is perception. Perception is reality and therefore reality is subjective.
Okay, so if you still give a crap, here it goes.
In the past, humans have tried to explain the universe through religion, or at least this is the common sociological view. Today, we are "more advanced" and rely on empirical science and the scientific method.
Empirical science is based on positing a hypothesis and then testing it. If the tests back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is considered a valid theory. The theory is then applied to daily life and science progresses a little further. We have managed to explain the universe a little better. However, the possibility (or probability) exists that the theory does not completely explain the phenomenon it set out to explain. Anomalies present themselves.
We are then faced then with scraping the whole theory or modifying it in such a way as to encompass the anomaly. Again, testing and proving, etc. Sometimes the modifications work and the old theory progresses as modified, sometimes a new theory is required.
Here's where my cracked take comes in. What we claim to "know" is always, in fact, only theory. It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE that some anomaly will come down the pike that cannot be explained by our theory du jour and we will have to scrap the lot of it. Yet, as with Descartes and his subjective reality, we can sit in fear of what we can't be sure of, or we can bravely venture forth, semi-certain that what we believe is true. Venturing forth has worked pretty well for us.
But the thing is, if you want to play word games, (which I do) it breaks down like this:
a) We can't be sure of what we claim to "know." We can observe consistent phenomenon (not trying to venture into Kant here, but use standard scientific lingo) and we can try to explain the reasons for them, but we can never be sure our theory will not later be refuted by more modern research.
b) Therefore, despite our best efforts to the contrary, even what we "know," we must take on faith. We BELIEVE that the current theory explains the phenomenon, but if we want to be intellectually honest we MUST ADMIT the POSSIBLITY that a better theory can be proposed.
I think that is about the gist of what I wanted to get at, but as a side note, I have a little something I like to ask to (maybe) drive the point home, that is, "can anyone tell me how gravity works?" I know you've all heard about it and that a lot of scientific stuff is based on it. I know that it is a "fundamental force of nature," but I don't know HOW it works. Is it a magnetic thing? Particulate? Other?
I would hate to believe that so many people would believe in something they can't explain, just because they read about it in a book, or because the guy at the front of the room told them to believe in it. That would just be silly wouldn't it?
Submitted by Infecto (user info) at 2003-08-08 17:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why not chip? You obviously cared enough to post your opinion.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-08-08 16:48:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Could really not force myself to care enough to read this.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-08 16:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry iddqd, but that's just wrong. No one believes in something "just because." Everyone has a reason for believing, or some experience or evidence that stands behind their beliefs. If you want to believe that you can idspispopd through that wall, you need a reason. You need some evidence to support your belief. What an insult to people of faith to suggest that they have no logical reason for believing what they do.
-Bus
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-08-08 09:54:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
having faith means you have no need for knowledge. not knowledge in general but knowledge about, for instance, the existence of god.
if i BELIEVE in god, then i have faith. i dont need to read a book, listen to anyone else, and i definately dont need to prove that there is a god. i just believe.
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-08 02:23:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay I just thought of something. In no way am I trying to say I think this is true, just something to think about.
Two things I have said before. 1) People today have the brain capacity that people 10000 years ago had. (or longer, not sure about the numbers, read it in some science book, there is some evidence to this I think) 2) I beleive that god was created by man. Key words being I believe.
So considering that 10,000 years ago, before religion was discovered, that a person could have the same thoughts we are having, and understand them just as well, how hard is it to think that some person decided that, instead of pondering the meaning behind the universe, which is ultimatily unknowable, that it is better to just believe in a "god" and therefore created religion.
Religion to me is good for a lot of people. To me, and this is going to upset A LOT of people, religion is better for those who are not smart enough to consider that they will never know anything.
Before this post I did not believe in god. Now that I have considered all that has been said I still do not believe in god, but now more than ever. I do agree that it is possible that there is a god, but that does not effect my beliefs, what I think is the most likely answer.
And you know what, I think it is good that a lot of people do believe in god. Like I said before, I like to argue. What makes me mad is when people I am arguing with won't consider my arguements and get childish. The world would be pretty dull if everyone had the same beliefs. I know you have all read Brave New World.
Okay that is enough for now. Time to sleep. Rip me a new one please. :)
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-08 01:17:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have to go with iddqd (ha the code in Doom I just realized that) Belief and knowledge are totally different. And maybe I am wrong, but can you really say we can't comprehend faith just because we have none? Just because I have no faith in god does not mean that I can not have the same sort of feelings on a different subject. And basically since you have no idea what it is like to have no faith, you can't say that this is wrong.
The way I take what he said is that faith and knowledge can have a connection but they are not the same thing. Knowledge is facts, faith is something you beleive to be true. You DO NOT know for a fact that god exists. If you do, prove it to me. I simply believe that god does not exist, and, contrary to what other people have said, I do think it is possible, however unlikely, that there is a God. My beliefs are totally different than what I know. I know that you are going to argue with me (well I am hoping you will) but I don't know that I am right, I just beleive I am.
That is the one thing I hate about this post, it makes arguing seem like some futile thing to do. I LOVE arguing, what am I going to do when I can't argue?
Sorry if this was poorly written, I am drunk again. I was never good at expressing myself to begin with.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-08 00:17:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
iddqd-
I don't quite know what all that means, but is sounds like you're trying to say that in order to have faith you have to ignore your knowledge, or that your knowledge should have no bearing on your faith. That's just silly.
Of course, I can understand why you and other people who don't have faith can think that. There are definitly some ignorant Bible bumpers out there that love to ignore all the evidence of science and insist that the earth was created in six days 13,000 years ago. But that is not what religion is about. Religion is about learning about the world and humanity. It can't be exclusive of knowledge because it's the same thing. Faith is like a really strong scientific theory. You base it on the observable evidence but it's not testable. In this case the evidence is writings, or testimonies, or logic. And quite frankly I don't know how you can talk about what faith is "supposed" to be like since you have none. Do you want to go tell an NBA player how he's "supposed" to play basketball? (no fair substituting WNBA in there)
-Bus
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-08-07 23:04:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
faith isnt about knowledge. it is about belief.
i cant really articulate this how id like to, as i dont have faith, i make my assumptions based on my lack of faith. i can go out and get knowledge, whether i read origin of species or the bible; there is knowlegde to be had. but if i choose the bible path, and believe in god, it doesnt matter to me what some book, or some guy with a funny collar says to me, i just believe in god. i shouldnt need proof. chrsitians trying to prove the existence of god is contradictory to everything they believe in. im sure that there are bible quotes i could use to back me up on this one. it feels like this is a fairly fundamantal thing.
in short, belief and knowledge are two separate things.
Submitted by EvilZurr (user info) at 2003-08-07 21:38:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-06 16:33:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
EvilZurr... huh?
What point did you assume I was trying to prove exactly?
"Don't worry, I'm not that impressed either. It did occur to me tonight, however, that I can write something and a lot of people will read it for that reason if nothing else.
So I'm going to write something here. In fact, I'm going to write a lot."
sorry razor, it sounded like you were saying "i could write whatever i want, and as much as i want, and people will still read it". i still havent read the whole thing, but your daughter has... nice hair?
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2003-08-07 18:42:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HELP ME!
HELP!
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=106029313797084846
HELP ME!
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-07 16:20:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
iddqd-
"you cant hedge your bets with this one im afraid. you either believe in the existence of god or you do not. it is called FAITH."
"i think you should go and re-evaluate your beliefs. believing in god because you were raised in church, and there seems to be a lot of truth to it isnt good enough. you believe in god because you believe in god, dont try and rationalise it, just believe."
For someone who is not religious you sure seem to have it figured out.
I used to think the same way you do. I'd sit in church, listen to the things they said and think, "Well that's sounds reasonable, but how do I know it's really true?" I used to think, "Look at all these people here, are they brainwashed to be so adament in their beliefs? Aren't they ignoring something?" I felt very seperated from them because I thought that I was the only one that acknowledged the possibility that it wasn't true.
But after talking to people, I found that everyone felt that way to some degree. The whole point of faith is that you're NOT 100% sure. If you were, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.
Perhaps I was a little weak in asserting my beliefs earlier, I believe a little more than "it sounds good to me because I was raised that way." I'd put my belief level in God at certainty. My belief level in Christianity at very probable. However I have to acknowledge the possibility, however small it is in my mind, that there is no God. Just like I have to acknowledge the possibility that we're in the Matrix, even though I'm certain we're not.
I think faith is more about making the choice to believe. No one is born with faith in their hearts (or maybe everyone is born with faith in their hearts, and we all learn to loose it as we grow up.) But believing in God is a choice. If God really wants me to KNOW 100% that he is there, that's just too bad for me. I won't know that until I see him. Until then, I'm just doing the best I can.
Razor-
Yeah, to be honest I really did forget the original post, my comments were not really directed at that, but at the ensuing discussions. Sorry.
-Bus
Submitted by AprilMS (user info) at 2003-08-07 14:32:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this was too fugging long to read so i just scrolled down to see how long it was. What an adorable baby!
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-07 11:58:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I just acknowledge the possibility.
Since I cannot know, I must build my worldview myself.
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-07 11:49:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The thing about evolution though is what if it does have an ultimate goal. What if the survival instinct isn't just random. If a person beleived this how is that so much different than believing in a God. You can't prove that it isn't true.
After reading this for a couple days and listening to people argue back and forth their ideas, my opinion is that maybe I should just beleive in nothing. At least than I will be right about one and only one thing, that I am wrong about everything else. And to me this won't make life horrible and meaningless, I still can enjoy myself. Live life for what it is.
Question for Razor. Were you saying that you really believe in god now? or that you are just acknowleding that it is possible? If the first one why?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-07 11:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nicole -
I intend to write a separate post on Ethics, I got tired before I could get there. I think I said that somewhere further down, but I don't blame you for not reading all the replies.
I will tackle some of what you said in there.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-07 11:27:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nicole - I'll have to think about this. I think it's very possible that instinct comes from evolution. There is a point when the brain can override instinct, which is why we don't accept the same behavior in humans that we do in animals.
I remember an experiment we did in my high school physics class. We were studying friction, momentum, typical high school physics stuff. The experiment was to tie a weight to a string attached to the ceiling. The idea was that if you held the weight against your nose and let go of it, there is no possible way it will actually have enough momentum to swing back far enough to hit you in the nose.
It is virtually impossible to stand there and not move when a weight is coming right at your nose. You know intellectually that there is no way you will be hit, but 4 million years of evolution is a hard thing to over come.
I ducked and it irritated me when I did that.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-07 11:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Razor, I'm not exactly wild about "pseudo-intellectual" either. But that's exactly what this is. The points go nowhere except to make people think in circles. The ideas are not original and they accomplish nothing."
Bus -
While most of what I wrote WAS the work of other philosophers, I made it clear that they were serving as a neccessary background for my own ideas. Reread it - some of what is in there is mine and mine alone.
"If something was truly intellectual it would be productive. Not that these arguments aren't fun and interesting, but it's more of a contest of who can manipulate words around the most. A game. If you really want something to make a difference in your life, you've got to believe something, not just post thoughts from philosophers and ask questions that can't be answered."
I'm really not sure that you understood the original post at all. The ***ENTIRE POINT*** of this is to construct a worldview from the ground up. Life is full of questions that cannot be answered, I'm sorry if you want to have something simple that you can wrap your mind around and then stop thinking, but I'm out to get as close to truth as I can (probably not close at all), and I'm out to have a worldview that I can be totally comfortable with because I constructed it and it makes sense, with no inconsistencies.
Submitted by Nicole3 (user info) at 2003-08-07 10:09:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor - how dare you put this out while I was on vacation. I have just now had a chance to read it and some of the responses. When I have more time later, I'll try to get to the rest of the responses. Here is my take on it thus far.
You say that we each individually must define our own right and wrong because there is nothing else that we can be sure of its existence. I agree with you to some extent, but this is where I have a different take on it. I think that there exists an optimal solution or state for the world and our society. Everyone has the general sense of what this optimal state will look like - everything will be in balance and everyone will be happy and peaceful. What the specifics are of this optimal state is, I don't know. Many people throughout history have thought that they have known, Hitler, Marx, Napoleon, etc. So basically, no one agrees on how to get to this point or exactly what form the solution will take. But just because we don't know what it is or can't agree does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Everyone's beliefs as to right or wrong are shaped by their vision of the final solution. Anything that moves us closer to that goal is right, anything that moves us further from that goal is wrong. It is the differing views of the final solution that cause the differences in people's beliefs in right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a definitive right and wrong that would yield the best possible result.
Someone defined morality as what yielded the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I completely disagree with this statement. What is commonly defined as moral behavior does not necessarily yield the best solution.
Loki - you said something about how you believed that there has to be some instinct that is inherent in life forms. I don't agree with this. What you term instinct is just a result of evolution. Babies have an instinct to suckle. This is because that the babies who suckled more than others tended to live longer and procreate producing offspring with the same suckling "instinct". The same could be said for your example of mothers protecting their offspring more than someone else's. The mothers who showed greater concern for the babies of others tended to have their own children not lead suck long and productive lives so their genes weren't passed on as frequently. The same thing could be said about any so-called "instinct" whether it be bird migration, social interaction, or mating. Also, I'm sure that many of the traits that humans now posses were the result of random and unpredictable disasters that weeded out much of the population, but leaving a select group of people with certain traits. We still carry some of those traits or instincts even though they are no longer useful to us.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-07 08:51:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
DAHAM look how SMALL that scroll bar is up there.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-08-07 06:11:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"because I allow for the possibility that I am wrong" - gbusman.
bus, you cant hedge your bets with this one im afraid. you either believe in the existence of god or you do not. it is called FAITH. if you have it, then there is no need for discussion, faith beats any proof or argument. im not religious by the way.
judging from your words, you seem to be lacking what i feel is a fairly essential characteristic of a religious attitude - that of faith. you sound like you are using god to put a name to something you cant quite figure out. this is not intended as an insult - i cant figure it out either (my way for dealing with this is apathy. sweet, sweet apathy).
i think you should go and re-evaluate your beliefs. believing in god because you were raised in church, and there seems to be a lot of truth to it isnt good enough. you believe in god because you believe in god, dont try and rationalise it, just believe.
can someone bring me up to speed in as few words as possible where the rest of this discussion has gone?
i feel like dipping my toes in the water, so to speak (or type).
razor, if you read this; i like the original post, but it either needs a LOT more words, or a lot less. i think the former.
Submitted by Cymensen (user info) at 2003-08-07 03:14:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
" If you really want something to make a difference in your life, you've got to believe something, not just post thoughts from philosophers and ask questions that can't be answered. "
-Bus
Socrates made a difference with his life, and he asked questions that couldn't be answered.
Razor get's +2 more for being awesome.
Submitted by Cymensen (user info) at 2003-08-07 01:14:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"This post will probably get six replies"
irony.
Great post, I love it. I think I'm gonna add it to my favorites.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 22:15:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not so much a fear of morality that makes me believe in God. As I said, the only thing I know is that I have a soul. I feel an "essence" as you put it, that cannot be explained by electons popping in my brain. I think most people feel it when they have some down time to themselves and think about it.
This realization opens up a whole metaphysical world of possibilities, which of course no one really knows anything about. I'm not a bible bumping tell-it-on-the-mountain Christian, but I was raised in church and there seems to be a lot of truth in it. I will never stand on a road side with a sign, because I allow for the possibility that I am wrong. But as I ranted about earlier, if I stand at the pearly gates when I die and God says, "Why weren't you a Jew/Muslim/Hindu/polytheist?" At least I can say I did the best I could. If I'm wrong and there is no God, oh well. I'm no worse off.
I am also not as quick as you are to dismiss all these past testamonies and documents. The bible, despite it's flaws, is one amazing book. Jesus, despite the way most of his followers today behave, was an amazing guy. There's nothing in there about harassing people, killing infedels, or ostrasizing your fellow man. If you have to pick something to believe in, it's a pretty good one. It also coinsides with my take on morality (scroll down.)
So if I believe in God, then I believe that the laws of nature are like his tools. After all, if I created something as amazing and powerful as the laws of nature, I'd want to put them to work. So he made planets and stars, created life, and caused raining fire, floods and plauges. Now if we were to analyze these things today, we could probably find a scientific explaination for why each occured, or see a little about how his tools work. But that doesn't mean they're not his doing.
When you look at everything together, it has a certain order, it makes sense. Not that there aren't plenty of questions, but we obviously can't know everything. The holes that are left to fill in are not the kind that conflict with reality.
As for the animal soul thing... that's an excellent question. I have a dog too. He is definately aware, experiences emotions, dreams, thinks, etc. Some people have about the same intellectual capacity as animals. Do they have souls? Do babies have souls when they are first born? Where does your soul go when you sleep and time seems to pass instantaneously? I don't know a lot of these things. All I know is when I'm awake, I feel it's there.
Well I'm glad we could have this sharing time together today boys and girls.
-Bus
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 19:00:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not a pessimistic view on life and death at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that we are alone in this world. I know that people who are religious draw considerable strength from their faith. I don't understand that any more than you understand how I can be at one with the belief that all humans, myself included are highly evolved animals.
I think when we die, we cease to exist. Perhaps this belief that death is forever is what makes me a peacenik. ; ) This is not to say that I do not fear death. I would like to live a long and productive life and hopefully when my time comes, I'll be ready for it. That's all anyone can ask though really isn't it?
Is it a fear of your own mortality that draws you to a belief in God? If so you would not be alone.
As for a soul, I don't really know what to tell you there. We're moving from my comfort zone now Bus. I said I was more comfortable in a science lab than over in the dusty book side of campus. : ) I'll think about it and see if I can come up with something better than this, but my initial reaction is to say that I am self aware enough to know that I have some sort of essence, consciousness, personality; if you want to call it a soul then sure, I'll accept that.
The question I have is, do animals have souls? I believe the Christian mantra is that having a soul is what separates man from animals. So how do you define a soul and are you sure that animals have no soul?
I have two Siberian Huskies. They were littermates and have never been separated from each other. Granted one is male and one is female but they have completely different, for lack of a better word, personalities. I don't mean to anthropomorphize the "kids", but I see them study problems and figure out things. They communicate and I know them well enough to know in a lot of cases how they are going to react to different situations. What is the difference between that and a human soul?
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 18:15:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, I said I pity the soulless people, not the atheists. But if you think that you don't have a soul and you happen to be an atheist, then this shouldn't really upset you. You think you are soulless too. In which case I feel sorry for your pessimistic view of life and death. Sounds pretty cold to me.
-Bus
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-06 17:44:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Calling atheists 'cold' and 'soulless' and pitying them is pretty much to the point where I refuse to argue with someone.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-06 16:33:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
EvilZurr... huh?
What point did you assume I was trying to prove exactly?
And Loki, feel free to have a discussion on religion on this post. It's part of what this is all about and I think that people who are drawing a distinction between religion and philosophy are taking a narrow view. For that matter, I think science, religiion, and philosophy are all the same thing.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 16:32:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No, loki, this isn't about a core religious debate. This is about your passing off your beliefs as undisputable facts. And I certainly am not unloading with both barrels if that's what you were implying. The agnostic comment wasn't for you, since you are obviously an atheist (ohhh, a label... but guess what, you fit the definition.)
Razor, I'm not exactly wild about "pseudo-intellectual" either. But that's exactly what this is. The points go nowhere except to make people think in circles. The ideas are not original and they accomplish nothing. If something was truly intellectual it would be productive. Not that these arguments aren't fun and interesting, but it's more of a contest of who can manipulate words around the most. A game. If you really want something to make a difference in your life, you've got to believe something, not just post thoughts from philosophers and ask questions that can't be answered.
-Bus
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 16:12:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"But god was created by man"
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. You don't no, oh I guess you do since you're so enlightened.
"I think it is pretty close minded of everyone to just beleive what everyone else believes"
obviously in looking at these reviews, everyone doesn't beleive in the same thing I do. Sounds like you're trying to be hip and trendy when you say stuff like that.
Keep walking around all high and mighty and never consider that you don't know everything.
Maybe you should read Razor's post again.
Submitted by EvilZurr (user info) at 2003-08-06 16:04:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"So I'm going to write something here. In fact, I'm going to write a lot. About my entire take on the universe"
i stopped there. please dont post just to prove a point...
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:51:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Anyone can sit around and ask questions all day long, play the psuedo-intellectual game and talk about philosophy."
I hate the phrase pseudo-intellectual. What does that even mean? Are you saying that I'm pretending at all this?
I don't think you understand philosophy at all.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:51:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bus, my real views on religion are very well formed and somewhat antagonistic so I don't really go into it all that much. The bottom line is that my brain is not hard wired to believe that it's even remotely possible that something like god could possibly exist. I don't care for labels like atheist or agnostic because those are religious terms and I don't recognize the authority of someone else to attach such a label on me. I am hardly a pussy, what I am is polite enough not to really unload with both barrels.
I think that everyone has to find their own way of reconciling the world and as such I don't want to piss on anyone's beliefs.
If you want to get into a core religious debate, we should really take this off of Razor's post. I think I have a couple of rants on here about how I feel if you are curious.
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:43:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes it is possible that there is a god, and I suppose it is possible that he created life. But god was created by man. You have to beleive it's possible that the day after you die I will build a time machine out of legos and go back and start life. Will you acknowledge that as being possible and start praying to me? I doubt it. To me both of these ideas are just as ridiculous because they were created in a human's head. I think it is pretty close minded of everyone to just beleive what everyone else believes.
I will argue for science because it's a better story. At least people who come up with those theroies make it seem like they put some effort in it.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:36:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
loki,
I totally understand your position. I look at the stars and wonder what's going on there right now, wondering if it already blew up and we wouldn't know for 500 years. I'm not one to look at nature and think, "Look what God created!" I look at everything through a very scientific lens. However, sometimes I have to explore a little further than that. I know you don't want to hear "what banged" but that's exactly what I think. And maybe it's not God, but I promise you it's something I can't comprehend. The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that I have a soul. Maybe it's some energy thing that reincarnates, maybe it's a unique spirit of God, but whatever it is, I don't comprehend it, and neither does anyone else, which opens the door for a whole world of things that we can never understand. Our minds are not all that amazing in the grand scheme of things, and it's silly to think it can comprehend everything.
As for the agnostics, at least they acknowledge that they don't know everything. They're waiting for someone to show them. They're waiting for God to appear to everyone on earth and announce, "This is my religion of choice, here is the truth." This will never happen. Not until it's too late anyway. My only message to you is believe something. Quit being a pussy. Anyone can sit around and ask questions all day long, play the psuedo-intellectual game and talk about philosophy. Don't be so scared to go out on a limb and say, "If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I did the best I could." It's like you're staring at an oncomming truck, not sure if you should jump left or right, so you just sit there waiting to die. If you go right, maybe you still die, but at least you tried.
So where does that leave us loki? Let's go smoke a bowl and see if that helps our enlightenment.
-Bus
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:04:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I pity naïve deluded people who lack the imagination and will to make their own decisions.
Where does that leave us Bus?
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:04:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor has the right approach to this arguement. Which is what I was trying to say in my last review. Ruling out the possibility of not being right in arrogance.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 15:03:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry razor, this has gotten way out in left field on you.
I don't think it's cold at all. In fact I get quite passionate about science. I love exploring and finding answers. In fact I have rather enjoyed this debate because it made me go back and do a bit of reading on the subject. Normally I get the "I'm not a monkey" argument that is a no-brainer to dispute, the issue of the very earliest spark of life is fascinating and something that I have not looked at in a long time.
You seem to think that we are missing something in life by not looking at Razor's baby and seeing a miracle. She is a miracle, just not one in the way that you think of it. Thankfully, she's HIS miracle and not mine, but no less a miracle.
This is something that I wrote on Murphy's perception vs. reality post that explains my viewpoint on this: http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1060015113959812144#118781
IF the reality of it is that there is no God, you're believing in one will not make it happen. You can stand on Plateau Point in the Grand Canyon and look down on the Colorado River. A spiritual person can look down on the white caps of rapids breaking through the deep green of the water as it snakes through the varying reds, browns, and grays of the canyon and think that it is proof that not only is there a God, but that God intentionally created this magnificent place as proof of his existence and of his love of beauty.
What do I see? I see 7 different distinct geological zones created by erosion and the virtually infinite amount of time that is a geological era. I may get a bit mystical thinking of how inconceivably long it took for the river to create this entire canyon. I would get lost for some time absorbing the different color patterns and contrasts. I feel an unexplainable connection with anyone who has ever or will ever stand in the exact spot where I am standing and looked over the side of the exact same cliff at the exact same spot on the river. No two people have ever stood there and had the exact same experience. I get struck by how prehistoric the area appears and given that I am surrounded by fossils and can see the effects of erosion, I see the entire panorama as further proof of the theory of evolution. (I have no idea what tense I'm using here - use your imagination, I told you I'm sick today)
I could go on for days here, but you get the point. God is nowhere in the picture. It's not out of spite or desire to exclude God, it just does not occur to me. Neither person's experience has anything to do where God exists or not. If he does, he just does, if not then he doesn't.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bus -
Did you even read my original post? I made it very clear that I lean towards the existence of a higher power, but fully acknowledge the potential for deception either way.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:54:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I pity the soul-less people. I really do.
-Bus
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:52:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You say that makes me 'cold', I just say that makes me sane.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:51:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Don't you guys feel an awareness that's more than a biological robot reacting to stimuli?"
Nope.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:44:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh man, I come back, totally ready to throw down, and you guys went and took all the heat out of the argument. Just a few questions:
loki and razor-
What is it about you that makes you so cynical? Don't you think it's pretty arrogant of you to think that you can know it all? Do you really think there is nothing in existance that is out of the realm of your comprehension? Razor, look at that beautiful little girl. Isn't that a miracle to you? Sure, we can explain her biology, psychology, physiology, but don't you think there's something more? Don't you guys feel an awareness that's more than a biological robot reacting to stimuli? Did somthing happen to you guys in life that made you so cold?
-Bus
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:43:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry
Everyone thinks that they are RIGHT ,but we don't know shit
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:40:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Why does that make me close minded? As a person who does not beleive in god, that possibility is immedaitaly ruled out. The thing that I don't think is possible is the existance of a God"
Because you rule out the possiblity that you could be wrong, as I could be wrong, and as Loki could be wrong.
How can you rule out the possibility of anything that you don't know BY FACT to be true.
There could be a God - would make you wrong
There may be no God - would make me wrong
You are putting faith in the idea that there is no god and you are only moraly responible to yourself.
Is that any more sound than me having faith in something different.
We can't make a fact out of something we don't know or understand. If we did this science would be a crock of shit. Hence to deny the possibility of being wrong is closed-minded.
Back to Razor
"I am the dream of a butterfly. I guess that "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
Everyone thinks that they are richt ,but we don't know shit
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm relaly busy but can't respond but will get back eventually.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:15:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to say that evolution is a fact. How about this: The explanation by modern science on how life came to exist is so cunningly simple and yet elegant, and makes such perfect sense to me, that I fail to see how anyone reading the journals I have read could possibly deny it.
I live smack ass in the heart of the bible belt and have had this fight many many times, so much that I swear to whatever higher power may or may not exist that the next person who says, "what banged" to me is going to catch it right in the nose.
Is that better?
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-06 14:07:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I just think that it is very closed minded to think that 'by-design' is not possible."
Why does that make me close minded? As a person who does not beleive in god, that possibility is immedaitaly ruled out. The thing that I don't think is possible is the existance of a God.
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 13:46:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh yeah
" I have faith that if I drop my pen it will fall. That is because I know that gravity is a constant"
That is not faith. That is knowlegde. You know that gravity will make the pen fall because it is a law of physics. You can test it over and over and over and you will always have the same outcome.
Say you were told that if you are holding a moon rock and let go, it will stay suspended in air, and you believed it. That would be faith. You can't get your hands on a moon rock to you can never test it. I know people with access to the rock can test it. This is probably not a good example but I hope you see my point.
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2003-08-06 13:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Attacking my sentence structure, grammar, and/or spelling does not disprove evolution, it just makes you a dick resorting to the sad, pathetic logical fallacy of substance over form"
I wasn't trying to do that. Hence the :). Sorry if that's how you took it. It looked correct to me. I was honestly impressed that you could make a sentence that long and have it not be a run-on. I wouldn't hassle you on that anyway. That would be irrelivant to our conversation, and shitty.
Again, I'm not saying that evolution did not happen. I'm quite confident that it did. We can observe that. Stating that life definitly started from non-life as fact is just not correct. Just as stating that it is a fact that life came from design is not correct.
We just don't fucking know.
We can theorize on what we do know.
I take to the design side. You take to the chance side. That's fine.
I don't state my side as concrete FACT, and neither should you for your side.
I'm not trying to preach here or convert you. I just think that it is very closed minded to think that 'by-design' is not possible. I never said that your arguement is not possible.
You read the evidence one way I read it another. This type of arguement is what keeps science progressing.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-08-06 13:10:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Faith that one day science will answer most of life's little puzzles and faith in a higher being are sooo not the same thing. I have faith that if I drop my pen it will fall. That is because I know that gravi