(no subject)

[alexmegami]

I can't sleep.

Well, damn.

So right now, I'm thinking about arguments for and against existentialism. I'm going to leave realism/antirealism out of it, as well as subjectivity/objectivity - for the most part, those arguments boil down to "well, it may SEEM one way, but I believe that there IS a way to find a true reality that we can know. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done."

I think my problem with arguing philosophy with Patrick and Simon is that it boils down to this:

I care whether things are proven one way or another.

Simon and Patrick both say (on the matter of determinism) that finding out that determinism exists wouldn't affect them. Their entire life, they have lived as though they had free will, and if that turned out to be an illusion? Well, they'd lived with that illusion for this long - they could continue to live with it after finding out that it was an illusion.

Me? Never. I couldn't do that.

Alternately, if God was irrefutably proven to exist, I'd be forced to either choose to accept him as my God, or I'd have to say "I will not follow you". I could not continue to not believe in the existence of God, because there would be proof of his existence.

I find it interesting - and somewhat disturbing - that while Patrick is the one that wrote "what's so great about illusions and complacency?!" that he is content to live with the (philosophical) ideas he holds, and would continue to hold them even if proven wrong.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to struggle to some greater concept of truth that may or may not exist. But I'm still striving for that. Belief cannot be accepted as knowledge. If that is so, then the majority defines what reality is. If 51% of people think that women are inferior, does that inherently make them so? Does a majority of the world population believing in God make God exist?

I don't think so. There has to be an objective reality out there, and maybe all we're doing is perceiving it incorrectly, but it has to exist. Otherwise, what are we perceiving? We can't perceive other people's subjective perceptions. If a schizophrenic imagines a space cow is crushing you, that does not mean that it is happening.

I feel like I'm arguing myself in awkward circles. If someone can help me out (or can argue me into a different state of thinking), I'd be appreciative.

Comments

A couple of pages of learning

[trenog.livejournal.com]

Well the thing is, back in the ancient days of Aristotle and such, as soon as someone came along like Aristotle, Galen, or Ptolomy (less Ptolomy, I just can't remember the one that delt with astronomy right now) and they were able to make sense of the world so that the everyman (the higher classes mostly because they were the ones reading the text, being rather literate and educated) could understand it, it stuck.

That's why you had the Earth at the centre of the world (it still worked with the Christian view of things later on when Christianity came) or the idea that human internal organs were very similar to animal ones (even though when the time came to cutting up those human bodies, and the surgeons found something wrong, they dare not question the texts, they were The Texts afterall).

So it can be easily said the world can be seen incorrectly and that even now, there are notions that are outdated. The principle reason why this was the case was that the people grew comfortable with what could be explained with less deviation from their norm. Nobody wanted to fight the ideas of a great man either when they came up with something (it'd be pretty daunting to prove you're theories are better then Aristotle's back then, even if they were correct. The people probably wouldn't accept these strange ideas).

(Yay Science as Discovery class!)

And on a side note, I wouldn't mind much either being told that this is a determenistic world or that God exists. I'd live my life the same if my choices were not my own and I'd worship God as I saw fit (although with more devotion then right now. It's easy to slip when the rest of the world demands attention).

Re: Arguing in Circles

[mysticjuicer.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's time to look into Eastern philosophical thought. If it in itself doesn't help, maybe it will make you think of something new or something old in a different way. This is just the OAC textbook in me talking, but apparently the idea of subject and object doesn't exist in the same way in Eastern thought. Frankly, any 'all is one' statement drives me batty, but that's just me.

Peace.

[user-lain.livejournal.com]

What *could* you do after finding out determinism was irrefutable other than ignore that it exists and continue with your life? I mean, at least, you could enjoy the illusion right?

All life is an illusion.

Silencio

[alexmegami]

Well, no. There is always the option of death.

[user-lain.livejournal.com]

I know there's always death. But why die when you can say "Screw it, if everything is predetermined, I'm going to have chocolate-covered strawberries and lots of sex with hot people."

[alexmegami]

But what if my predetermined future doesn't *have* hot women and chocolate-covered strawberries? ;)

[user-lain.livejournal.com]

I'm not 100% sure about the women, but definitely the strawberries.

You can go out and buy strawberries right now. GO BUY STRAWBERRIES! YOUR DESTINY COMMANDS YOU!

...

Right. I guess, if I were to find out that my life was predetermined, I'd do exactly what I wanted from that point on. Even if it was loads of meaningless sex for money. Because apparently I would have been *meant* to become a prostitute and then retired to a country home because it was predetermined that I wasn't stupid about spending money. And then I'd live out my predetermined life of contentment. Because regardless of what I did in the immediacy, I could not change my destiny. So I'd do what I wanted. I have no hand in my fate, so I don't need to worry about what I do in terms of ethics. Like the Calvinists believed, your place in Heaven or Hell has already been assigned.

That's why those really fanatical religious people scare me. That their whole moral impetus rests on Big Brother (God/Allah/Whatever) watching over them. I *choose* to do what I perceive to be right, it may be faulty and flawed but at least I don't need someone watching my every action.

At any rate, I don't believe in really hardcore determinism anyway. It never made much sense. Maybe the big events are predetermined (like to whom you're born or whatever). Unlikely. Whatever.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

Thing is, with hardcore determinism, you finding out that your life was predetermined and all the subsequent events are predetermined themselves, while you may pursue the life of sex for money afterwards, you had no choice in the matter, there being no real free will .

[user-lain.livejournal.com]

Actually, I understand that, Stuewe. That is, if life were absolutely predetermined and I found this out, it would be predetermined that I would become very hedonistic after finding out - just like it would be predetermined that Alex may commit suicide after finding out.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

I knew you knew, just being a bit pedantic. Thing is, I'm not sure if any of us can predict what we'd do, since we don't know if we'd be the same sort of person as we are now when we found out. An epiphany might change our entire perspective on life, an brain-damage-causing accident might radically alter our personality, or we might have been so ground down by the banal cruelty of the world that that we can barely muster a shrug of indifference. Until the situation actually happens, everything else is just speculation with incomplete information.

[user-lain.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's true.

It's just conjecture of course, like what we say we'd do if we found ourselves in Battle Royale.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

No, *that* I'm certain on. Admittedly, it's being certain that I'd snuff it, but certainty nonetheless.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

To me, worrying about determinism comes down to Pascal's Wager. If the universe is deterministic and you believe it is, you had no choice in the matter, similarly if the universe is deterministic and you don't believe it is. If the universe allows for free-choice and you don't believe in determinism, then you'll be able to direct your life as you see fit. In the final case, where the universe allows for free-choice and you believe in determinism, it's likely that you'll allow yourself to be taken advantage of or otherwise submit to your situation, as you don't think you have any other option. Assuming that it's indeed a binary question (and that there isn't such a thing as "kinda" having free will), the choice seems obvious.

I believe there is an objective reality, at least in terms of the physical world, although most likely not an objective moral reality. On the other hand, quantum theory might overturn all that, I understand they've found some pretty weird things in the way the universe behaves...

[trenog.livejournal.com]

Yea. In the Eastern philosophical system (I remember this from Peglar. Go Peglar! Woo!) that there are no dichotomies.

And arguing in circles isn't bad. Just means that you have no loose ends ^_^.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

*lol* In the case of God the point would be moot. You can't say "One day I would find out that this life-changing, unimaginably beautiful and Glorious entity of Love exists, and it would not affect me". If the entity exists, by its very nature, when you come to believe it is, it affects you. To say it wouldn't means they're not really taking into account the scope of what they're talking about. Ignorance may be bliss, but if you saw something that amazing you wouldn't be able to convince yourself to forget about it, since nothing in the world could ever possibly compare to its own glory and beauty.

... I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense. :\ It does to me, though... hope it helps. :)

Alternately, all knowledge is based on belief. It's something we just have to come to terms with. Nothing drives a scientist crazier than a populace that demands that they "prove" it.

There is no way to truely "know" something (only believe in it with your heart), because everything is either made up of first hand perceptions (falliable and subject to change!) or on what we hear from others. I had a physics student explain to me the other day why E=MC2 doesn't work. But until then, I believed it. And maybe even then, someone will come up to me tomorrow and explain why it /does/ work again. *shrugs* Life's not about concrete knowledge so much as it is about feelings and doing what's right. Getting distracted by absolutes prevents us from taking action - it's like people not willing to give up cars until climate change is "proven". Sometimes you just have to go with your best guess or you're screwed. The waiting can be what will be what gets you.

Besides, is it so important to know or not know God exists, or rather how one would live one's life based on said knowledge? There's some guy... I can't remember the name... but he was this scientist who decided to become Christian. Not because he necessarily believed in God, but rather, as he said (paraphrased!) "Either God exists or God doesn't exist. If God exists and I do this, and try to follow the religion and do the right things, I go to Heaven when I die. If God doesn't exist, at least I've still done the right things." And I bet he never spent another thought on it.

It doesn't really even matter so much what religion you choose (though I'd recommend no cults... ^^;; ). It's the lifestyle choice that's hard. That's why people sit around debating the logic of religion, instead of just doing something with themselves. You could spend your whole life arguing and accomplish nothing, and what would be the point? You're no better off than when you started.

[alexmegami]

Pascal's Wager. And that's a very, very poor way to live your life, if you ask me. In his view, three out of your four options wind up with you being a good person.

But basically, his argument is, "even if you don't believe, act like you do because it will a) make you more moral and b) get you into Heaven if you were wrong about the non-existence of God". There, you've basically turned Christianity into a form of after-life insurance, which really defeats the purpose.

It also implicitly dictates that it is impossible to be non-religious and moral at the same time.

I'd argue that a lifetime of debating the nature (and/or existence of) God and religion would get you closer to the "real" truth than when you started, and that can never be a bad thing.

Also, your argument requires that an objective reality can never and will never be known - again, something I don't believe is true. *shrug* I think, with enough work, we (eventually, sometime, maybe thousands of years down the road) will eventually be able to percieve reality as it really is.

That's what I hope for, anyway.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

I'd say the wager isn't "act like you do", but rather, there is no harm in acting according to a particular religion's code of behaviour if you find value in it. A lot of people seem to expect that they will believe in God before acting according to a code, rather than acting according to a code and then finding God while actually putting some work in. It seems like people want answers without doing any work in return. And if you wait for absolute proof, you'd spend your whole life waiting rather than acting.

And expecting ourselves to be capable of fully knowing an objective reality would require us to be able to be virtually omniscient - it assumes humans don't have limits. And though it may be possible in thousands of years, it does you no good now.

It's true you don't have to be religious to be moral, but if your prime interest is morality (rather than the existence of God), why not sit around and debate that?

People shouldn't stress over whether God exists or not. If you think he might, then have faith you might be able to know it some day, and get to work in the meantime. There are a lot of realities out there that people can work on without worrying about those they can't see. Christian religion also says that a non-believer who spends their life doing good will get into Heaven before a believer that does nothing. It's what you're made of that counts.

*lol* Sorry. I'm really not a fan of intellectual debates on issues that can't be easily resolved. Being an environmentalist, a lot of problems can be solved by simple decisions and acting. To stop overpopulation, I simply do not have children. The problem would be gone if people would act, but they'd rather sit around debating it endlessly and "how difficult it is" rather than actually just setting out and solving the problem. The problem in this case isn't whether or not God exists, but whether or not you can deal with being uncertain, and how you should act in the face of uncertainty.

[alexmegami]

I can deal with being uncertain, but I'd rather work towards a certainty rather than remain uncertain endlessly. I believe that God does not exist, but I'd rather work towards a certainty that there is no God.

Unfortunately, only some Christian denominations say that a non-believer who does good gets into Heaven before a believer who does not. And how is one to know which denomination to listen to? Any could be considered valid. For me, it's a moot point - there just is no Heaven and no judgement passed when you die - but a believer has to deal with the fact that what they believe could be wrong. And if God winds up being wrathful and/or requiring that you believe in Him in only one certain way, where does that leave you?

I'm fully in agreement that action is good, but only action is not good. There needs to be at least some amount of thought and debate, otherwise you may overlook either the cons of your planned action, or the benefits of another action. Thought to indecision (i.e. Hamlet) - bad. Blindly rushing into action - also bad. There's a golden mean somewhere between the two.

It's not as though my life is paralyzed by the realization that I don't know - merely that I am willing to dedicate a portion of my time and energy to search for an answer beyond "I don't know".

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

Denominations are much with the weirdness, I agree, but it's from the Bible moreso than a denomination. I'd be much happier if I could find the passage for you, but I'm not a walking encyclopaedia. *lol* Personally, I boil it down to "God is Love" and keep that in mind. Since that's my faith, I don't worry about horrible amounts of wrath when I die.

A believer generally speaking doesn't have to deal with the fact that they might be wrong, because they believe based on a "knowledge". Everyone else just calls it belief because they don't share it.

You have to recognize there's no way to prove God doesn't exist. How on earth would you ever manage to do so? There is /nothing/, absolutely nothing, in this world a scientist considers proven. It's varying degrees of probability to the point of a scientific "Law", which is "We haven't found it to /not/ be true, yet". Which /isn't/ proof. In the case of God, you'd never get there, because there will always be people with some reason to believe or another.

And would it really be worth your time? In the event that you were right, and there was no God, absolutely nothing would have changed in the world (and in your "Afterlife", so to speak), and so what would be the point of pursuing it?

I agree that all action should be thought out, but when you're looking for something you can't find one way or the other by talking (does God exist?), you might as well drop it and move on. Why waste a breath? I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity says "Seek and ye shall find". You don't find God sitting around chatting about him, you find him by going out and trying to do good and hope that, at some point, he'll give you a more specific reason to believe for your efforts. Since that's how people that believe in God think you find God, if they're right, then you'd be better off trying that instead of chatting with intellectuals. And if they're wrong, then nothing would happen. But, you'd still be doing good.

Heck. Skip the debating and try the praying.

*lol* Sorry. I get really frusterated sometimes... I know so many skeptics or atheists or whatever that sit around and debate the existence of God. I know God exists. It drives me nuts that people debate this. If they can't believe in God, I'd rather them sit around, think of a way to improve life for others, then go out and do it. To me, it becomes an image thing. People just want to sit around and talk - like it somehow makes them feel important to be philosophizing. If God doesn't exist, there'd be no point, and if God does exist, he certainly would want time spent on something other than debates that can go nowhere!

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

Thing is, a lot of things in life are self-indulgent, a lot of great things, and if we followed that principle to its logical conclusion life would be nothing but trying to help others, others who'd ignore our aid in their strivings to help us. Wars would be fought to subjugate people so that we might help them without them being able to stop us, and in the end we'd all go mad. Such is the destination of the good-intentioned paved path.

But seriously, people should simply live out their lives as they see fit, loving their neighbour because they do instead of acting out the rotes of a commandment.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

I'd agree to that. But I still can't see the point to debating about whether God exists. I might as well be debating the chicken or the egg. (I guess if I were a palentologist there might be a point, but otherwise?) Self-indulgence is one thing, but there's absolutely no concrete conclusions that can come from a matter that requires a physical evidence (for most people) as proof. Then again, if it's only indulgence, I'd return to my theory that people debate God to look sophisticated and "modern". o_O.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

Like what we're doing right now? ;)

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

I suppose. But I'm not debating whether or not God exists, but only that if he does, this certainly wouldn't be the best way to find out. Religion isn't trivial or indulgent for me - it's a way of life for a lot of people and deserves respect, not to be trivialized into coffee-shop talk. It's so illogical it drives me nuts, especially when most people don't really care that much about the topic (if they did, they'd try other things than mere debating to resolve it). Generally speaking, people's religions should be approached with respect and that's about it. If you don't agree with it, that's life, but going "I am going to disprove their God!" is appalling in my book. One of the best lessons I've ever learned in religion I learned from a hanging on the wall at a Muslim family's house. People that are excessively stuck in their views (including the hardcore atheists!) miss what other people, cultures and religions have to teach them. It's more about proving yourself right than learning what's out there. While that's fine in most situations (Well, not fine, but I'm not going to fault people for it), when you start treading into the territory of what other people hold sacred, you're asking for trouble. I had to explain to someone once that insulting a person's God is worse than insulting their Mom. (And that includes trivializing them!) It's about respect and learning, not proving each other right or wrong.

Yeah.

P.S: ('Cause I meant to reply ages ago, but am slow) - I caught the Vietnam execution reference, but not the nazi/trenches one in the Animatrix. Gracias. :) Still disturbed, though. o_O.

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

I think you have a good point there. That's why I have a general distrust of all forms of ardent belief in anything, as believing in any one thing tends to blind the person to alternate possibilities of action or thoughgt. Not sure insulting someone's God is worse than insulting their mother, although given that the people choose their religion but not their mother, it could be certainly be well-argued for.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

:)

... Think I'll end with that. :)