TheLiberator34 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Might it actually be (and cast the dogmatic ideal of the unquestionability of mankind's survival aside, if even for a moment) that we indeed, through our growing intellect, are on a road to a fuller understanding of existence that will eventually overcome our primal, genetic urges and lead us to the discontinuation of our existence as a species as the logic viable result? In other words, will rationale at some point finally get the better of emotion and we can quietly return to the oblivion from whence we came? So what? Logic wins and we cease to exist? Come on. I don't think that any single force or facet of human existence was meant to overpower and obliterate the others. Logic and Emotion are and should remain two opposing forces that balance each other out. Also I don't know about you but I DO care about the survival and evolution of my species. Call illogical biological imperitives if you will, but I'd much rather have a flawed and living species than a perfect and non existent one. As for my point about "replacing" religion with rationale thought I wasn't being clear enough. I meant what institution would you create to replace religion? Not the ideas but how the school of logic would be taught and passed on from generation to generation. Because you can't just say POOF and make religion disappear and let "pure" logic take it's place. You'd have to actually get you hands dirty on that one. I wouldn't polute mankind with morality. Morality finds only true disciples in the few, hypocrites in the many, and ignorance in the rest. Either that's a subtle reference to Taoism's "have no laws and people won't be criminals" concept or that was a gross generalization. I just can't decide... As for talking about compassion and empathy as subjects of the mind, I don't quite disagree with you. Although the organ of the brain is the biological source of our emotional imperatives, there needs to remain a line of seperation between logical thought and acting your more benevolent emotions. Often times it is impossible to logically justify benevolence, you just do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 On another note, does anyone know why my last post went length wise like that? I don't know how to fix that. Anyway, Carry On Folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator .... Also I don't know about you but I DO care about the survival and evolution of my species. Call illogical biological imperitives if you will, but I'd much rather have a flawed and living species than a perfect and non existent one. And that view, shared by the vast majority, is exactly what allows pain to endure. And you, as a Christian, don't even feel no shame for it! Originally posted by JediLiberator As for my point about "replacing" religion with rationale thought I wasn't being clear enough. I meant what institution would you create to replace religion? Not the ideas but how the school of logic would be taught and passed on from generation to generation. Because you can't just say POOF and make religion disappear and let "pure" logic take it's place. You'd have to actually get you hands dirty on that one. You persistently carry on as if I'm interested in the continued existence of mankind; quite the contrary, I'm immensely in favour of its annihilation. Originally posted by JediLiberator Either that's a subtle reference to Taoism's "have no laws and people won't be criminals" concept or that was a gross generalization. I just can't decide... It was supposed to enlighten you of the fact that we are little more than primal in our emotional workings. Morality is more often embraced out of fear than compassion. Without morality man would live purer to his emotions and the weak would soon become extinct. Originally posted by JediLiberator ..... there needs to remain a line of seperation between logical thought and acting your more benevolent emotions. Erm, the brain is divided into several areas (though I'm not suggesting they work completely independent from each other)...you are aware of this, right? But pray tell, of what would this line of seperation consist? Originally posted by JediLiberator Often times it is impossible to logically justify benevolence, you just do it. I surmise that you regard benevolence as an act of unselfishness. While there is most likely a long history containing many elements that would explain how benevolence entered the picture of man, I will roughly explain benevolence as a surplus in the relationship of one specimen of a species to another. For many centuries man has been an animal not needing his full resource of strength at all times to survive, allowing him to look to his fellow man and share of this surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Ah, Jubatus wants the death of man. No wonder he seems like he is insane. o.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki Ah, Jubatus wants the death of man. No wonder he seems like he is insane. o.O Not merely the death of man, the annihilation. And indeed it does seem insane (yet that term is subject to semantics) to your dogmatic beliefs, but my conviction originates from simple logic, rationale and compassion, for where you see non-existence as negative I see it as the ultimate balance point, where we will be truly freed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 umm yeah... I think I can say I win! (Can one win these sorts of debates?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Against somebody who wishes for the Annihilation of man? I think you win by simply ignoring him as a babbling loony. And if being Dogmatic means not desiring the annihilation of your own species, then I am glad I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 He's a follower of the pessimistic philosophy. He follows the pattern of people like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, both nihilist philosophers and at the same time violently atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Figured it was something like that. I see nothing good out of him myself. His way of thinking leads to being pessimistic, which, in my opinion, is bad in itself. So his opinions of religion no longer bother me, now that I know that. Thank you Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Originally posted by Jubatus ...for where you see non-existence as negative I see it as the ultimate balance point, where we will be truly freed. We don't see dying as negative because we go to Heaven after. And your statement right there is blatenly wrong about Christian beliefs but the last part of your statement sounds kinda like religion to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator umm yeah... I think I can say I win! (Can one win these sorts of debates?) Elaborate. Originally posted by Hiroki Against somebody who wishes for the Annihilation of man? I think you win by simply ignoring him as a babbling loony. How very altruistically Christian of you. Originally posted by Hiroki And if being Dogmatic means not desiring the annihilation of your own species, then I am glad I am. And you blindly skip along happily knowing that with your assistance in the continuation of mankind you contribute to pain. And you call me insane... Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad He's a follower of the pessimistic philosophy. Realistic, not pessimistic. Originally posted by Hiroki I see nothing good out of him myself. His way of thinking leads to being pessimistic, which, in my opinion, is bad in itself. So his opinions of religion no longer bother me, now that I know that. You're not supposed to see "good", but balance. And as said previously, my way of thinking leads to realism, not pessimism, but then again I am quite sure you do not fully know my way of thinking. Originally posted by Reborn Outcast We don't see dying as negative because we go to Heaven after. Read more carefully, I said annihilation, not merely death. Originally posted by Reborn Outcast And your statement right there is blatenly wrong about Christian beliefs ... What statement? Originally posted by Reborn Outcast ... but the last part of your statement sounds kinda like religion to me. It may sound like it to you, but it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I believe your philosophy is violently dangerous, and potentially destructive myself. And not only with fanatics. It saddens me to see people who have such goals as the "annihilation" of man. You say I spread pain by not desiring it? You sound like one of the gimps who "just can't take it anymore" and kill themselves. Save me you life sucks rants. Try and actually get out there and enjoy it, before you try and "annihilate" it...and yes, that is pessimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Actually, I think Jubatus has a point there regarding the annihilation of men. Thousands of people are dying each day, I wouldn't be surprised if one day, though we don't know when, the entire species of men might be extinct. Terrorists, serial rapers, murderers, cannibals abound, where is the love? We kill one another more than animals killing their own species. Men, with his intelligence, has made the world better, and worse in a way, of which the latter will be his undoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Jubatus Realistic, not pessimistic. Call it what you want, I have study philosophy. You follow pessimistic philosophy. Pessimism doesn't exactly have the same meaning in philosophy. Mostly includes people who think that humanity should "restart". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Um yeah so lets say mankind IS annihilited jubatus. What then, you'd still have a planet containing a variety of species that are now free of the fear of immediate extinction and can evolve to the same level as us(within a few million years) and live and suffer all over again. Or if you want to go on an even higher level, lets say the entire universe was annihilated. Then (brace yourselves, some physics here) you would have a massive gathering of potential energy, and all it takes is one "spark" to set that energy off and then we could have a restart of the universe all over again. So what exactly would you hope to accomplish with your "triumph of logic"? In the end even if you win, you'll still lose. The simple reality of existense is we live, we feel, and we have self awareness. What purpose would be served; having all three of these gifts and not using them to explore and sometimes preserve the universe we live in? As for balance, balance can been found when opposing forces are equal, or at least close to it. Your view would suggest order should be paramount, and that certainly does NOT sound balanced to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki I believe your philosophy is violently dangerous, and potentially destructive myself. And not only with fanatics. It saddens me to see people who have such goals as the "annihilation" of man. You say I spread pain by not desiring it? You sound like one of the gimps who "just can't take it anymore" and kill themselves. Save me you life sucks rants. Try and actually get out there and enjoy it, before you try and "annihilate" it...and yes, that is pessimistic. My philosophy is not about violence, if anything the end of violence is included in it. And as for people wanting the annihilation of man saddening you, well, tough titty, because here we are. I said you contribute to pain, not spreading it, by merely supporting the continuation of man, because there can be no sentient life without pain - to think that Utopia is possible is sheer folly for as long as we are different, there will be conflict on all levels, from individual petty jealousy to full scale wars. In addition conflict must be for man to evolve. So yes, in not desiring pain you yet contribute to it. As for killing myself I am rather close to that point, but not because "I can't take it anymore" but because I see no point in taking it - life is irrational, it's like Sisyphus' punishment. If I could get out to enjoy life and forget about the annihilation of man, why don't I? Originally posted by Druid Allanon Terrorists, serial rapers, murderers, cannibals abound, where is the love? We kill one another more than animals killing their own species. Men, with his intelligence, has made the world better, and worse in a way, of which the latter will be his undoing. And the sooner the better. Thus it would me far more compassionate to do it in one swift stroke rather than through generations of further pain. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Call it what you want, I have study philosophy. You follow pessimistic philosophy. Pessimism doesn't exactly have the same meaning in philosophy. Mostly includes people who think that humanity should "restart". Call it what you want then, I'll call it realism. And I don't want a restart of mankind, I want it ended forever. Originally posted by JediLiberator Um yeah so lets say mankind IS annihilited jubatus. What then, you'd still have a planet containing a variety of species that are now free of the fear of immediate extinction and can evolve to the same level as us(within a few million years) and live and suffer all over again. Or if you want to go on an even higher level, lets say the entire universe was annihilated. Then (brace yourselves, some physics here) you would have a massive gathering of potential energy, and all it takes is one "spark" to set that energy off and then we could have a restart of the universe all over again. So what exactly would you hope to accomplish with your "triumph of logic"? In the end even if you win, you'll still lose. The simple reality of existense is we live, we feel, and we have self awareness. What purpose would be served; having all three of these gifts and not using them to explore and sometimes preserve the universe we live in? As for balance, balance can been found when opposing forces are equal, or at least close to it. Your view would suggest order should be paramount, and that certainly does NOT sound balanced to me. Guess I should have said annihilation of all existence from the start, for that is what I really want...don't really know why I started and stuck with merely mankind...oh well, nevermind. Oh, wait, looking back to where I started with it I see it was because it fitted into the context of where our discussion was at the time. Anyway, that takes care of your whole argument right there, because with the annihilation of all existence there would be nothing to start over with. Balance is when 1 and -1 meet to become 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 And then another big bang occurs... after all, in the beginning there was nothing right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 lol, We have our very own madman bent on the destruction of the universe. The wackiness of Lucas forums continues to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator And then another big bang occurs... after all, in the beginning there was nothing right? Nothing can happen from nothing, but that is besides the point. What I'm trying to get across is that the discontinuing of all and any existence is all things considered for the best, it is to be wished for and if possible to be worked against, if one possesses the enlightenment and compassion to see it. Originally posted by Hiroki lol, We have our very own madman bent on the destruction of the universe. The wackiness of Lucas forums continues to grow. It is easiest for you to write me of as a madman, but since you will not understand me at least you have to accept that I am. I am of the same species as you, I grew up on the same planet in the same time as you, and I am where I stand now with my convictions - that you cannot deny. And trust that I do not consider myself mad, au contrare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Oh you're not mad Jubatus, I just don't agree with you, at all. As for not getting something from nothing, if you physically annihilated everything you'd have a universe's worth of POTENTIAL energy, so even if you have nothing with physical form , you still have SOMETHING. It just can't be seen. In essense true emptiness is really impossible( speaking from what little I know of science). I do have a question for you though, if pain is such a bad consequence of being alive that you prefer annihilation, how can you explain why you haven't attempted to annihilate yourself? Not to sound nasty or anything, but from your philisophical standpoint that seems like the logical next step in this process you speak of. What "illogical" impulses keep you from individual annihilation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator Oh you're not mad Jubatus, I just don't agree with you, at all. As for not getting something from nothing, if you physically annihilated everything you'd have a universe's worth of POTENTIAL energy, so even if you have nothing with physical form , you still have SOMETHING. It just can't be seen. In essense true emptiness is really impossible( speaking from what little I know of science). Aye, conventional science says that the amount of energy in our universe is a constant and that it can only change state. I've never claimed that the annihilation of all existence is possible, only that it is desirable. Originally posted by JediLiberator I do have a question for you though, if pain is such a bad consequence of being alive that you prefer annihilation, how can you explain why you haven't attempted to annihilate yourself? Not to sound nasty or anything, but from your philisophical standpoint that seems like the logical next step in this process you speak of. What "illogical" impulses keep you from individual annihilation? Because I do not know if it's at all possible to do so. Sure, I can kill myself, but that does not guarantee the end of consciousness/awareness as there might actually be something after death. It is an irrational fear, I know, since I am bound to die eventually and nothing in my current knowledge can guide me to change what might be in store for me, be it Heaven or Hell or reincarnation or just some continuation of awareness in whatever state, spiritual or otherwise. So it is also the thought that some insight might come along and more importantly that I will only be able to use that insight to influence after-life matters from the living side of death's door, so to speak. In addition there are habits that briefly keep my mind off of it; I get sleepy so I sleep, I wake up and feel hungry so I eat, I need to use the bathroom and so on. Then there is the awareness of the pain I would inflict upon family and friends were I to commit suicide. Then again, the balance of suffering my personal pains are slowly outweighing the urge to hang around to keep them from suffering, since it gets harder and harder to justify my own pain for their sake, because I'm getting more and more to the point where I bring no joy to them. Finally there is the compassionate side in me, albeit small, that wishes the end of mankind for all my fellow human beings, for I am no naïve fool beliefs we can ever exist as a whole without pain. I just wish I could somehow erase this irrational fear of oblivion from man. I guess he will get wiser further down the line, or who knows, perhaps he will get lucky enough to be eradicated by some cosmic event, snuffed out of existence in the blink of an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Well, if you don't hurry the process along, why not just enjoy the ride? "Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Nihilism More about Nihilism Better definition of nihilism from this website What is nihilism? Encarta defines nihilism (from Latin nihil, "nothing") as a "designation applied to various radical philosophies, usually by their opponents, the implication being that adherents of these philosophies reject all positive values and believe in nothing." (Encarta, Copyright © 1994 Microsoft Corporation) Webster's Dictionary defines nihilism as - "(1) (a) a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless (b) a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths (2) a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility..." (© 1997 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated). We will be discussing the idea that true nihilists "believe in nothing". We will suggest that any use of the word that includes active destruction of anything is an unjustified extension of the concepts underlying nihilism. We will suggest that there are no logical grounds for what is often called "positive" or "active" nihilism. In doing so we will be questioning the very foundation of the works of modern philosophers who argue that one may find or create "value" in a world without a life after death, a nihilistic world. You are a pessimist, a nihilist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 You should try gothic fashion Jubatus, if you haven't already. That social group would be a balm for your spirit. As for Hiroki, what a stick in the mud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator Well, if you don't hurry the process along, why not just enjoy the ride? "Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Because of the pain...havn't you been reading anything I've written? Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad You are a pessimist, a nihilist. I'm a nihilist absolute, yes and a realist. Why are you so persistent in shoving down the label "pessimist" down my throat? But then again (again) call it as you see it and I'll call it as I see it. Originally posted by Spider AL You should try gothic fashion Jubatus, if you haven't already. That social group would be a balm for your spirit. As for Hiroki, what a stick in the mud! Gothic fashion? Eww, but, er, thanks for the concern. Why would he think adhering to a fashion minority would help ...? Oh well ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.