The Philosophy Thread

[GMT]

Well I really dont mind if you take a week to get round to giving a considered answer, time isnt really an issue to me, to ponder the thoughts of another, esp if they are contrary to my own, is something worth waiting for. You make it clear that this seems a small issue to you, but I wish to get one of 2 views from you, or a third, either you see no need to temper your will, or you accept that you must will into being your own limitations for action. The first makes you scary, the second makes your original statement of not accepting any thou shall nots, innaccurate. I'll await an answer. Your answer of not being willing to judge the actions of another is an interesting one. Though so far I dont really think hundred year old theories are that profound anymore, sorry.

 

[Sardonic]

I'm not sure what you want from me. You keep saying I'm not answering you because of -- what sounds like "pretentiousness" when you describe it, when I clearly have answered you multiple times now.

furthermore, the profound question was regarding your sillyness about me taking a break before answering your questions due to me having a real life. yes, my thoughts are abysmal, and rather you believe me or not is of no matter to me. yes, your questions bore me, and at the time when i made this thread i was tackling what i consider to be deeper issues than this, and was looking for someone possibly going through the same thing but found no one, so i read more. i've settled the issue, and now i'm here to answer your questions.

[edit] when i say i am bored, and these issues are small to me, i do not mean it in a belittling way. i've long since pondered these issues, and they are small in the way "is there a god?" is small.

 

[GMT]

Well you have insinuated an answer, but I didnt want to make any assumptions on the issue. From what you insinuate, I must if I am not to get a clear answer, assume that it is as follows. If somone annoys you, and you have the capability, you would feel within your rights to kill them. Is that accurate?

 

[Sardonic]

Well you have insinuated an answer, but I didnt want to make any assumptions on the issue. From what you insinuate, I must if I am not to get a clear answer, assume that it is as follows. If somone annoys you, and you have the capability, you would feel within your rights to kill them. Is that accurate?

i have a habit of not reading my post before i post them, so i often edit in additional comments like above

that isn't accurate at all. what kind of question was that? be serious.

 

[GMT]

So what is your position on your original statement of not accepting thou shall nots?
What is there to stop you from taking that action?

 

[Sardonic]

So what is your position on your original statement of not accepting thou shall nots?
What is there to stop you from taking that action?

have i not said create new values? _my_ morals would stop me. why would i ever solve a dispute in that manner?

 

[GMT]

""Thou Shalt" is not a doctrine for me,", so now you accept and agree with me, that the will, the mind, must will "thou shalt" into place even if it doesn't allow another to impose one upon them. So I ask again, on what you base your morality given that you accept no religous scriptures or stories. And I add, don't you feel that not to Judge the morality of others, puts you at a disadvantage in this world, given that you restrict your own actions with a self imposed morality?

 

[gizmo]

strange how discussions on philosophy always end up with dissagreements

 

[Sardonic]

""Thou Shalt" is not a doctrine for me,", so now you accept and agree with me, that the will, the mind, must will "thou shalt" into place even if it doesn't allow another to impose one upon them. So I ask again, on what you base your morality given that you accept no religous scriptures or stories. And I add, don't you feel that not to Judge the morality of others, puts you at a disadvantage in this world, given that you restrict your own actions with a self imposed morality?

I base my morality on my will. I create _my own_ set of values and morals.

bah. who cries of disadvantages in a jungle? are you a preacher of equality? we are humans, but the aroma of the jungle is still in the air..

i can respect a lion completely for wanting to eat me, it is it's nature, but I would kill i nonetheless, because it is my will to survive. this is one of life's many parables.

move on though, this is boring. be discerning so i stop having to explain myself so god damn thoroughly. look into what i actually say, man. this is becoming more a philosophy class than thread.

 

[GMT]

Lol, you still havent come up with a logical method for valuing actions. All that you have said is that you will act in accordance with your will, but that you will restrict your will sometimes, but wouldn't restrict anyone else's will unless it directly conflicts with your own. A philosophy discussion is all about nailing the details down and keeping the arguement deductive in nature. Don't worry, I've gone through enough classes in this subject to allow me to hold my own here. Just trying to find your starting point. Personally, I do believe in the difference between good and bad. Though I have to accept the purity of the arguement that I at first believed you subscribed to. Now that we have established you do not subscribe to that, I am trying to pin down at which point we differ, so that we may examine the cause of difference in our points of view. And consider which of them is valid if either is. That, to my mind, is the method by which a philosophical discussion works. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Sardonic]

Your profile of me is completely wrong; these doctrines you think I subscribe to. There is a lot of assumption in your post. I imagine that are pasts differ greatly, so stop comparing us as if we're alike. An

Think of people as ships in a bottle; each with it's own set of language and customs. What gives me, one ship in a bottle the right to dictate another's ship, and enslave them in my language and customs? Who is to say who's is _RIGHT_ or _WRONG_, good or bad.

I have more love for a serial killer with a serial killer's countenance than the closet homosexual republicans being exposed every other week here in the US of A. Does that make sense to you? Do you understand that?

NOT ONCE did I say I would restrict my will. If you keep putting words in my mouth, I'll stop talking altogether.

 

[HCSmyth]

strange how discussions on philosophy always end up with dissagreements

Well without human disagreements there would be no need for philosophy, would there? Focus on how we deal with these ever-prevalent disagreements, and how to deal with our own egos, that is what philosophy I think should be about.

 

[GMT]

Well in one post you ask me to make assumpions, so I had to to start the discission off. I mean no offense by them at all. Merely trying to find your perameters. My question about whether you would kill another or restrain your emotions was to determine whether or not you would restrict your own will or limit your actions. You said that you would due to your morality, but a morality relies upon the distinction between good and bad actions, and I wanted to gain insight into how you felt such a code of morality should be constructed without assigning values to actions. Now you say that you wouldn't so I'm not sure which to believe now.
I can understand your serial killer arguement, but it is flawed. A serial killer tends to be a closet serial killer, providing the closet homosexual actually enganged in homosexual acts with at least the same frequency as the serial killer killed, then their purity of action is precisely equal, both ebarks on their chosen path in secret.