›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Philosophy

WertherWerther
edited November 2010 in Everything Else
I was just curious to know if anyone on the forums has a degree in Philosophy or studied Philosophy in any depth and if so how it has changed the way you lead your life and the things you believe in.
«13456

Comments

  • RymRym
    All of my own studies have led me to a sort of analytic pragmatism with a solipsistic underpinning. Little has moved far to convince me away from this in the last five years or so.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    The only actual class I took in philosophy was the logic class. Critical thinking and whatnot. It didn't so much change how I saw things as much as helped me hone the way I discussed my beliefs, and helped me improve my ability to communicate and if necessary argue a point.
    Aside from that, what I believe now in regards to faith/religion is pretty much the same as I did when I was around twelve or thirteen years old.
  • AmpAmp
    I took two years of it an college, looking at a hybrid mix of; ethics, knowledge (and its truth), a bit of political history, critical thinking, machine minds and the idea of what it is to be a human. Ended up following virtue theory predominately, owing to the subjectivity of each situation. Dabbled for a while in solipsism, empiricism and the Platonic form of rule, but ultimately lost interest in them.

    Over all it totally reshaped my beliefs and opinions on certain matters and keeps on causing me to redress my stand point on a topic monthly. The reading for the topics was properly the most interesting aspect of it, the discovery of Plato and his sandy vagina chef amongst them. Though there was that depressing period when I though solipsism ruled everything and was a douche, as the theory leads you to be.
  • RymRym
    Though there was that depressing period when I though solipsism ruled everything and was a douche, as the theory leads you to be.
    So, what is your escape from solipsism?
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    I've taken a few proper philosophy courses, as well as various scientific ethics courses which discuss philosophical matters. Also, I'm a scientist, which is a branch of applied philosophy.

    My various studies moved me in a direction similar to Rym's, with the added benefit of the total denial of free will.
  • RymRym
    My various studies moved me in a direction similar to Rym's, with the added benefit of the total denial of free will.
    I accept that I likely do not have free will, but simultaneously assume I do pragmatically in daily life, as there is a small possibility of escape.
  • AprecheApreche
    Though I accept that it is quite unlikely that I have free will, I do not have a belief either way. The fact is we just don't know for sure.

    The best part about it is that it doesn't even matter! If we have no free will, we have no free will. So what you do and think is what you were going to do and think, no changing it.

    But if we do have free will, oh snap! Therefore, you should always act as if you have free will. If you have it, you better make the most of it. If you don't have it, then that was what you were going to do anyway.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    I accept that I likely do not have free will, but simultaneously assume I do pragmatically in daily life, as there is a small possibility of escape.
    I accept it inasmuch as the alternative is to be a robot.

    It's important to remember the lack of free will when analyzing one's own behavior and the behavior of others. "This is a response to a stimulus. The world is not actually going to end. This feeling is a byproduct of my deterministic nature." Does wonders when attempting to keep one's wits.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited November 2010
    It's important to remember the lack of free will when analyzing one's own behavior and the behavior of others. "This is a response to a stimulus. The world is not actually going to end. This feeling is a byproduct of my deterministic nature." Does wonders when attempting to keep one's wits.
    Well, that's a completely different situation. While I don't know for sure if I have free will or not, whether or not other people have free will is a completely different question. And even if other people do have free will, there is no question that the majority of them do not exercise it, or do not appear to be exercising it. And clearly, there is no doubt, that while it is sometimes hard to tell on an individual level, on the group level there is clearly no free will for humans as a species, unless the hive mind has a will.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    It's important to remember the lack of free will when analyzing one's own behavior and the behavior of others. "This is a response to a stimulus. The world is not actually going to end. This feeling is a byproduct of my deterministic nature." Does wonders when attempting to keep one's wits.
    What's interesting is that doing so from the perspective of others such that it becomes reasonably predictive gives the appearance of more free will.

    It is possible, though slightly so, that different actions occur with different levels of awareness or premeditation. It is also possible, though even less slightly so, that one could, by beginning a feedback loop of predicting the behavior of others and then specifically acting on this newly extant information (itself effectively from the future by merit of being reliably predictive), that one could "break out" of the local causality stemming from the actions of others to a more fundamental (and for now, nebulous) general causality stemming from the Big Bang.

    As the alternative is nothing, and nothing is lost in the pursuit, I consider this idea seriously.

    Tl;DR:
    It is theoretically possible that we do not have free will, but that there is the possibility for an external event which thereafter allows for a "new" causal chain stemming from our own consciousness's feedback loop of stimuli, creating a person who appears to exercise "more" free will, if not indeed "actual" free will. I thus assume that I have experienced such an event, or am on the path to so experiencing.


    STL;STR:
    We might be able to "gain free will" by some means. No reason not to try.
  • AprecheApreche
    No reason not to try.
    This is a flawed idea since you would need free will in order to try to get free will. If you assume that we are born without free will, but it is possible to acquire it, then it can only be acquired through destiny and not effort.

    Also, I would like to point out one more thing.

    From a third person perspective, observing humanity, it appears that free will is very lacking. Especially as a group, our species hive mind has no shown any will. Or maybe that will has just made up its mind and always chooses reactionary and patterned behaviors. When I look at the evidence, it is clear that I, other people, animals, and plants, act in an instinctive and reactionary manner.

    Yet, in my own mind I perceive conscious thought. I perceive that sometimes I act in a reflexive and passive manner, and that sometimes I act in a conscious and deliberate manner. It is possible that free will exists, but just isn't used all, most, or some of the time. Therefore, I personally avoid instinctive and reactionary behavior, and attempt to act deliberately as often as possible. This makes no difference for anyone else because of solipsism. However, it helps me prove to myself that if free will exists, I have it and am using it to the best of my ability. To be clear, it doesn't prove I have free will. It just proves to myself that if I do have free will, then I'm using it.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    STL;STR:
    We might be able to "gain free will" by some means. No reason not to try.
    Sure, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time or energy worrying about it. I have enough to do with my self-induced illusion.
    but that there is the possibility for an external event which thereafter allows for a "new" causal chain stemming from our own consciousness's feedback loop of stimuli, creating a person who appears to exercise "more" free will, if not indeed "actual" free will.
    You can already do this by narrowing your frame of reference. Once you introduce the "external event" complication, you argument falls into a chain of infinite regression; what caused the external event, what is the cause of the cause, what is the cause of the cause of the cause, and so forth.

    By assuming you've experienced such an event, all you've done is pick an arbitrary point for "what came before," and worked forward from there. That's fine until something comes along which "came before" your event that "came before," and your whole illusion of free will is again shattered.

    I fully contend that as you expand your frame of reference, free will can only disappear. The only way to pretend that we have it is to exercise that apparent free will over things which we consider "lesser." The only way to exercise free will is act from the void created by the infinite regression created by your questioning of yourself.

    Or, in other words, ask "WHAT AM I" until you turn into a tornado of lightning.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited November 2010
    Or, in other words, ask "WHAT AM I" until you turn into a tornado of lightning.
    Oh fuck yes. I am going to start on this right now. Can you make a sarcophagus to put in the middle? Maybe I'll just suck one out of the museum or the King Tut exhibit once I'm a fucking tornado.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    This is a flawed idea since you would need free will in order to try to get free will. If you assume that we are born without free will, but it is possible to acquire it, then it can only be acquired through destiny and not effort.
    Ahh, quoting the dumbed-est down version of my point to then trivially refute.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    fucking tornado.
    I said a lightning tornado. A fucking tornado requires way more booze.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited November 2010
    Ahh, quoting the dumbed-est down version of my point to then trivially refute.
    Yes. I did that consciously and deliberately.

    But yes, your point is that causality is a tree (in the computer science sense of the word) and that it might be possible for us tiny ass buds to move up to the branch or even the trunk. I'm just not going to address the causality tree because it is far to similar in nature to the time cube.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    A fucking tornado requires way more Sranc.
    The Inchoroi are, after all, a race of lovers.
  • RymRym
    Ahh, quoting the dumbed-est down version of my point to then trivially refute.
    Yes. I did that consciously and deliberately.
    Prove it.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The Inchoroi are, after all, a race of lovers.
    So we fuck our way to the answer?

    I'm OK with this.
  • AmpAmp
    My escape is that I chose not to follow it. Although not an attack on those that choose to follow such a belief, I want to make that clear, the theory at its heart is bonkers. Oh yes we can fully argue that we are nothing more than brains stuck in vats waiting for Keanu Reeves to come and Kung-fu our way to freedom and that the world we see is just an illusion. This creates so many problems in our day to day existence that we end up doing nothing, or acting as we want doing what we want when we want for the sole reason that the world we see around us is not real.

    My argument to escape from solipsism is through logic and rational arguments. If what I see around me is a lie then what is the point of existence.
  • AprecheApreche
    If what I see around me is a lie then what is the point of existence.
    There is no point. There just is. I'm still going to do what I want either way.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited November 2010
    If all is deterministic, there is no free will. On the other hand, if there is some random element to the decisions you make, how could you truly call that element your will?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • JasonJason
    If what I see around me is a lie then what is the point of existence.
    There is no point. There just is. I'm still going to do what I want either way.
    Nihilism is really the way to go. Once you accept that you are nothing, there is no cosmic purpose for your existence, and that the universe is a cold, uncaring, purposeless near-vacuum, then the sooner you can get on with things and just enjoy life. When I abandoned my early Christian indoctrination, it really lifted a huge burden and let me start living for now instead of later.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    If what I see around me is a lie then what is the point of existence.
    To exist.

    I think I'm going to start the Church of Hot Monkey Love. It doesn't matter what you do in life, so long as you approach it the way a horny baboon approaches anything that vaguely resembles an orifice. Embrace the void!
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    If all is deterministic, there is no free will. On the other hand, if there is some random element to the decisions you make, how could you truly call that element your will?
    In other words, consider yourself looking back upon what you consider to be a decision you made.
    If you cannot determine why you made that decision, then it wasn't really your decision.
    On the other hand, if you can determine why you made that decision, then there is a cause for that decision.

    Neither case is something I would identify as "free will" - in fact, the very concept of free will is meaningless.
  • AmpAmp
    I'm laughing to much at the Church of Hot Monkey Love, and slightly puzzled about its practices.

    Why exist when there is no purpose if everything we do? If everything we see is a lie and has no real bearing, save for our fake world, why should we do anything?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited November 2010
    No meaning is needed. Only a preference for one state of reality over another.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • AprecheApreche
    Why exist when there is no purpose if everything we do? If everything we see is a lie and has no real bearing, save for our fake world, why should we do anything?
    Why do you need a reason? Why did I eat a bagel instead of cereal this morning? Reasons are a human construct. They're just a human idea. I continue to live and do things because I like living and experiencing things. If I cease living, there will be no more living, which I do not want. Just like I wanted a bagel.
  • JasonJason
    edited November 2010
    Why exist when there is no purpose if everything we do? If everything we see is a lie and has no real bearing, save for our fake world, why should we do anything?
    "Why" is a human construct. The universe doesn't need it.

    EDIT: DAMN YOU, SCOTT. HOW DARE YOU PREEMPTIVELY USE MY PHRASE!?
    Post edited by Jason on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Why exist when there is no purpose if everything we do?
    There's no set purpose to life. Nobody tells you why you exist; nothing requries you to do anything.

    Go give your life meaning. Seize the day and so forth. Or don't.
Sign In or Register to comment.