• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Religion: A mental illness?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123456...16
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Simian
ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...



Well, this is another discussion entirely. smile

Thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:you're completely missing the point.

i'm not saying that WE CAN TELL WHETHER WE ARE IN THE MATRIX OR NOT

i'm saying that WE MIGHT BE IN THE MATRIX, or we MIGHT BE IN THE REAL WORLD

and IF we're in the REAL WORLD, then we can KNOW STUFF. we can't know whether we know, but this doesn't destroy the possibility of knowledge.


ture na sig

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:If we're in the matrix then we can still know stuff, examples being mathematical truths, logical truths, 'I think, therefore I am' etc, etc.

When it comes to truths based on induction (experience) such as, 'the sun has risen every day for the past few millenia, therefore it's safe to say it'll rise tomorow'- these are, arguably, as reliable as for those in the 'real' world as well. This is so precisely becasue they are inductive truths, whether in the real world or the matrix.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Yes... it does.

How can you call something knowledge if you don't know if you know? The point of *KNOW*ledge is that it IS something that you know. Otherwise it would be called BELIEF.

You can't KNOW anything because you don't KNOW that the universe is real. You BELIEVE that the universe is real. You don't KNOW, because you can't PROVE it. Therefore you can't KNOW anything that is contained within the universe.

And stop shouting wink

And Dave, you saw my post about the "Real World" and the "Matrix" being completely different? So called "Mathematical" or "Logical Truths" may not in fact be the same in both worlds.

The point is that the *only* possible thing you can be sure of is that your consciousness exists.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Posted:quiet, it seems that the definition of knowledge is ambiguos, so we should probably stop using it.



Also, you can't really use the word knowledge to try to justify the existance of absolute truths, because the word itself assumes that there is an objective, external world. It's like proving that a=b using the assumption that a=b, or finding this in the dictionary:

Flower - an object will flower-like qualities.



I'm not denying that there is a possibility that these things are true, I'm saying that there is no way of knowing.



It's not fair to say that these considerations are stupid and that common sense should have the first word. Common sense helps with practical issues in everyday life, not breaking through the membranes of existance. Philosophy is about asking questions that aren't normally asked, thinking in ways that aren't normally thought. How far do you think rigid, simplistic thinking has gotten us over the years? Nowhere. Sure, philosophers have come up with some good names for ideas, but ultimately all that's been created is great big circles of thought.



It's time to realise that things like numbers (sorry dave), concepts, logic and rationality were created with reality, and therefore can't be used to transcend it.

As soon as I sit here trapped in a normal state of mind, thinking normal thoughts, trying to chop up and analyse the universe, i percieve myself as being only a part of the universe, and therefore can only think in terms of a subset within it. There must be an absolute truth as there IS structure out there, but it can't be understood unless you ARE reality itself. Perhaps this happens when you die, or (hopefully) it's possible to reach this state through meditation. Hell, maybe i already have, maybe everyone has at least at some point, understood everything but have now forgotten because we're in a state that is only a simplified, confined version of consciousness. The fact that we are sitting here on computers typing, means that right now we're believe ourselves to be to some extent, seperate from reality.



It's like the guys who built the Tower of Babel to try to reach heaven. Ultimately, they were just floundering about in their own physical world; no gain in altitude would bring them closer to heaven.



I think the thing that irks people so much about anti-realism is that it seems to say that we should all throw the towel in: that everything is pointless. I don't think this is true: for a start, philosophy is fun regardless of whether it gets us anywhere, and secondly, i think there IS somewhere to go by working backwards and denying the existance of illusions that confine our awareness, like logic and 'concepts'; by eliminating traditional thought altogether and expanding our awareness to encompass all eternity of space and time, to effectively die before you die. It's likely that people HAVE discovered the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, but are unable to express it because language is based on logic. Also, to talk, we have to seperate from the rest of reality so that our awereness is focussed as a seperate sentient being, and therefore, no 'being' as such can communicate the ultimute truth. Ever wonder why ghosts don't talk?



Good quote from Albert Einstein:



"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."


Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Written by: quiet
people seem to confuse certainty with knowledge.



clap


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Woah. missed a lot of this thread.... What if we're a mistake? and how can we use words when every person has a different perspective on the words people use. I find talking in text amusing as words are only a fraction of the way we communicate.
(have we drifted from the mental illness issue??)
whose to say the mentally ill are ill? someone looking in from a different perspective? or is it just someone who threatens the norm.
WHAT IS mental illness?

Flip reverse it baby...


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: PsyRush


It's time to realise that things like numbers (sorry dave), concepts, logic and rationality were created with reality, and therefore can't be used to transcend it.



Not entirely sure what you're saying there, but I've previously argued on the UToR threads that numbers etc are totally independant to, and seperate from, physical reality.

The UToR page is here-

http://www.davidpanther.plus.com/utor/utor.html
br>
The relevant HOP thread is here-

http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/show...ll/fpart/1/vc/1
br>
and here's a cut-and-paste of the relevant part-

QUOTE: from my 'Ultimate Theory of Reality' webpage-


i.e. that numbers and other mathematical entities somehow have being in a mathematical realm; and that they would be real even if humanity, or the physical world didn't exist.

Those who don't believe this may maintain that, contrarily, mathematical entities are mere extrapolations from actual physical objects (eg that the notion of a pure mathematical circle is abstracted from actual physical circles); or that they are creations of human minds (eg 2+2 = 4 only because we have defined it as such).

My approach to this won't be to get embroiled in the arguments for and against, but instead, to present mathematical entities that can be seen to exist independently of the physical or human world.

Specifically I will use Pi, and try to show that it can't actually exist in a physical sense, be represented by a physical object, or be 'created' by a human mind. Hopefully, in doing that, I will have shown that Pi must exist as a purely mathematical entity.

Pi is the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference; usually expressed as '3.14' it is actually an irrational number i.e. it cannot be expressed as a finite decimal fraction- any written value of Pi is an approximation, the string of digits that make it up is infinite in extent.

According to quantum physics, there are fundamental scales in our world below which size becomes meaningless i.e. we can't continue to divide a distance to give smaller distances.

This means that Pi cannot exist physically, or as a relation between actual physically existing lengths, except as an approximation. All physical circles are mere approximations- there are no genuine, mathematically perfect circles in the world.

Yet we can study perfect circles using mathematics, we can calculate Pi to a number of places far in excess of any that could relate to any actual physical entity.

Thus Pi is not derived from the physical world, and it does not 'exist' as a physical entity.

Neither is it 'invented' by humans. To see why, take the millionth digit of Pi; long before any human being actually calculated it, it was nevertheless the millionth digit of Pi; any future or past calculation of Pi will always yield that same digit.

It is an ongoing human project to calculate Pi to ever increasing degrees of accuracy; as a thought experiement let's imagine that humanity, using ever faster computers, continues to calculate the millionth digit, the million, millionth digit, the million, million, million, millionth digit etc, etc.

Suppose it continues to the last day of the physical world; it's a sobering thought to realise that even after that colossal effort, the uncalculated digits of Pi will continue to stretch onwards, a never-ending string of digits that is infinitly longer in extent than the string of calculated digits.

Each of those digits is real, pre-existing, and awaiting discovery; Pi is like a vast territory awaiting exploration- the calculations merely uncover what is already there.

I hope that this shows that Pi, and by inference, all other mathematical entities, exist independantly of physical reality and the world of humanity.

The mathematical realm they inhabit is, and always has been, timeless and unchanging- unborn, uncreated and undying. ""



"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Frankly I don't care if I'm in some 'matrix' or not and I don't think it makes any difference. You can argue about the philosophy of whether there is an objective reality but at the end of the day none of you have the scrot to step out in front of a truck and prove otherwise.

Mabey my belief in the immorality of toruring children is just a personal opinion but I have no qualms at all about imposing that belief on other people. The same goes for my belief in human rights in general. You can flame me all you like but I'm going to stick up for my emperical 'beliefs' that have change the world so much and for my moral judements which I hold for the simple reason that they do the most possible good in the world.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:The important point as i see it is:

If you're in the matrix, and think it's the real world, then you are WRONG but SANE.

If you're in the real world, and think you're in the matrix, then you are still WRONG but also MAD.

It's all to do with coming to the most simple explanation for things, using the information that's available to you.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

screech


screech

circling on the edge of madness
Location: away with the faeries

Total posts: 889
Posted:in the film would you prefer to be wrong and live in ignorance in the matrix not knowing how censoredty life really is or would you want to know the truth and live in a wazone outside the matrix in the ral world?

finland finland finland
the country where i want to be
pony trekking or camping
or just watching tv

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:missed alot of this thread, and as its five pages long im not goin to read it all. what i will say is that reality is different for everybody, we all have our own personal reality which interacts with the physical reality, and any spiritual reality (whether real or perceived). the individuality of reality is reflected in the individuality of each person on the planet.

in mot goin go argue about what reality is or isnt, its all relative and most people have it set in their head so solidly that nothing will change the way they see the world.



ok, dont wont to go on too much, have a tendency to ramble and then lose the plot a little bit. basically i think what im saying is that people view the world how they ant to see the world, im inb no position to say anyone is wrong, as i cant prove that my views are right, just as no one else can prove they views absolutly right.



anyways, if i was in the 'matrix', i would rather be out of it, living in the war zone, atleast then when you entered the matrix, you would have the uber-ninja skills.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Ditto with what Icer says, Uber Kung Fu rocks...

Written by: jeff(fake)


BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...





Hey, try to respect other peoples viewpoints please. If you're not interested, leave the thread.

Written by: jeff(fake)

...whether there is an objective reality but at the end of the day none of you have the scrot to step out in front of a truck and prove otherwise.




How the hell would playing in the traffic prove reality? All that would prove is that you're damn stupid.

Written by: jeff(fake)

...but I have no qualms at all about imposing that belief on other people. The same goes for my belief in human rights in general.




But wait... how about this?

You can only learn to fight when you're fighting someone. You can only conquer pain when you're in pain. Maybe torturing children would make them more capable as adults? Maybe forcing them to do maze puzzles while electrocuting them will help them to hone their concentration?

And with Human Rights... Where is the line? If I punch someone, is that a violation of human rights? What if he insulted my mother? What if he insulted my 3rd cousin twice removed? Do I still punch him? Do I get punished for it?

Your notion of what is right or fair may differ completely from someone elses. Saying that yours is superior is only a display of overwhelming arrogance and intolerence. Maybe the human race would evolve faster if people were crueller to each other? Maybe that would save generations of people from growing up in a stagnating society. It's one point of view. Species evolve faster under pressure.

If I said that I wanted to execute everyone with an IQ below 65, then I would have a perfectly logical reason for doing so: It would improve the species. However logical does not equal moral, so I won't debate that here.

My sig says my thoughts on this.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:ditto everything sethis said. there are many debates we could hold on here, of which there would be no resolution. so many points of view that they would be inpossible to count. but as long as someone holds them they are valid points of view. just b/c they are not your point of view doesnt make them wrong.
i agree completely with sethis' sig. i think it says my thoughts on this matter too.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:oh, rage. sethis: wrong, and you've missed the point.

quote: 'You can only learn to fight when you're fighting someone. You can only conquer pain when you're in pain. Maybe torturing children would make them more capable as adults? Maybe forcing them to do maze puzzles while electrocuting them will help them to hone their concentration?'

To which I have two responses:

1. No it wouldn't. Do a google search for 'learned helplessness' if you don't believe me.
2. And this isn't an example of torturing innocents for *fun*, it's an example of torturing innocents for some other purpose. So it's not a counterexample to my '100% true' ethical principle, viz., torturing people for fun is wrong.

And quote:

'Your notion of what is right or fair may differ completely from someone elses. Saying that yours is superior is only a display of overwhelming arrogance and intolerence'

Briefly:

1. There may be differences of opinion; sometimes it may be hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn't mean that there is no fact of the matter.

2. Nor is it a display of overwhelming arrogance to assert that your perspective is better. If someone says 'this bridge will stand up', and I say 'no it won't' - and they're an ignoramus whilst I'm an engineer, then I'm entitled to assert that my view is better. Why is it better? Well, because I'm better-placed to think about these things, better trained, and generally better situated to appraise whether or not the bridge will stand up. Likewise, if someone asserts that the Earth is flat, and I disagree with them, they are so obviously wrong that I'm entitled to assert the superiority of my position.

3. And if you're still not convinced, suppose someone says 'the Holocaust was a good thing', or 'the Holocaust never happened'. It's not arrogance to assert the superiority of my position over theirs; in fact, it's almost morally required.

What I find completely incomprehensible is the suggestion (made by Icer and Sethis, although I've heard it made by others) that *just because other people have different points of view, they must all be equally valid*. This can't be right. I think the mistake lies here:

quote: 'just b/c they are not your point of view doesnt make them wrong.'

No, but it doesn't make them right, either. Nor does it mean that your own point of view is flawed, or that you'd be unjustified in asserting it. I repeat: NOT ALL POINTS OF VIEW ARE EQUALLY VALID. Some are grounded in stupidity, ignorance, bigotry, and thoughtlessness.

If you still think that all points of view are equally valid, I'd be grateful if you could explain why.

---------

oh, and the Voltaire quote is off-target. Sure, people should have a right to free speech: but as Mill pointed out, this doesn't mean that you are free to incite an angry mob to lynch a Jewish shopkeeper. I'll defend people's right to say what they think, provided that it's not going to cause harm. But defending their right to say it and refraining from showing what utter cr*p they are saying are two different things.


ture na sig

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Written by: quiet


3. And if you're still not convinced, suppose someone says 'the Holocaust was a good thing', or 'the Holocaust never happened'. It's not arrogance to assert the superiority of my position over theirs; in fact, it's almost morally required.



But surely morality is based on perspective. And whose to say you perspective is corret?
For you perspective to be correct you would have to know the reasons humans were on this planet. (which I'm pretty sure would make you the smartest person in the world. have you posted on intelligence: men vs women)
If you want to break it down to bare bones, then unless you know the "Meaning of Life" then you dont know the purpose of every living thing on this planet. So how can your perspective and therefore morals be correct?

Written by: quiet


What I find completely incomprehensible is the suggestion (made by Icer and Sethis, although I've heard it made by others) that *just because other people have different points of view, they must all be equally valid*. This can't be right. I think the mistake lies here:

NOT ALL POINTS OF VIEW ARE EQUALLY VALID.

If you still think that all points of view are equally valid, I'd be grateful if you could explain why.



All points of view are equally valid....

Any point of veiw can be valid just because it is incorrect does not make it in-valid. I could say the sky is green and who'se to say the colour "I" see the sky is not "green" to me. No-one knows everything. What I think you mean to say is a point of view is in-valid if it doesn't conform to the Mean/average perception. ubbidea
Say to a person that speaks no english "The holocaust never happened" or "The holocaust was a good thing" and they will probably arrive at the point of view you are babbling something completely incomprehensible. To them the word "holocaust" may have no meaning so there would be no "moral requirement" to assertain an arrogant superiority.

What is your point of view on that? wink


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

screech


screech

circling on the edge of madness
Location: away with the faeries

Total posts: 889
Posted:ditto

Also:
in their day were the first people to say the world was round not hated for their heretical viewpoints (back to the religious debate) hence a perspective that at its time was considered WRONG turned out right. i have no more to say shrug


finland finland finland
the country where i want to be
pony trekking or camping
or just watching tv

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: quiet






'Your notion of what is right or fair may differ completely from someone elses. Saying that yours is superior is only a display of overwhelming arrogance and intolerence'



Briefly:



1. There may be differences of opinion; sometimes it may be hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn't mean that there is no fact of the matter.



2. Nor is it a display of overwhelming arrogance to assert that your perspective is better. If someone says 'this bridge will stand up', and I say 'no it won't' - and they're an ignoramus whilst I'm an engineer, then I'm entitled to assert that my view is better. Why is it better? Well, because I'm better-placed to think about these things, better trained, and generally better situated to appraise whether or not the bridge will stand up. Likewise, if someone asserts that the Earth is flat, and I disagree with them, they are so obviously wrong that I'm entitled to assert the superiority of my position.



3. And if you're still not convinced, suppose someone says 'the Holocaust was a good thing', or 'the Holocaust never happened'. It's not arrogance to assert the superiority of my position over theirs; in fact, it's almost morally required.



What I find completely incomprehensible is the suggestion (made by Icer and Sethis, although I've heard it made by others) that *just because other people have different points of view, they must all be equally valid*. This can't be right. I think the mistake lies here:



quote: 'just b/c they are not your point of view doesnt make them wrong.'



No, but it doesn't make them right, either. Nor does it mean that your own point of view is flawed, or that you'd be unjustified in asserting it. I repeat: NOT ALL POINTS OF VIEW ARE EQUALLY VALID. Some are grounded in stupidity, ignorance, bigotry, and thoughtlessness.







Spot on; absolutely right; I agree 100%; well said- and it did need saying- I'd like to see it posted as a 'sticky' at the top of the forum smile smile smile



How anyone can post (and they do, frequently) the view that all opinions are equal blows my mind.



I'd like to add that, to anyone who believes all points of view to be 'valid', that in doing so you are setting up an alternative proposition to the opposite view (that some opinions are more right than others).



To be consistent in your belief (than all opinions are equal) you must therefore acknowledge that you don't have any grounds whatsoever in critisisng that opposing view, as, by your own reasoning, it's just as valid as your own.



ie the view that all opinions are of equal value, is self contradicting.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:ok, i think ppl are confusing 'right' or 'correct' with 'valid'. they are not the same thing and when people say (like myself) that a point of view is valid, we not saying its right or that we agree with it. also there is a different between 'equal value' and 'equally valid'. it may seem like splitting hairs and fussing over semantics, but it matters.

i dont think its self-contradicting either.

if people dont agree with it then thats fine, your entitled to your own view, and your free to express it. i think thats what people call 'freedom of speech'. which, correct me if im wrong, is kinda founded on the fact that people have different views, which are equally valid, so should be able to express them. if they were not equally valid, why should they be allowed to express them?


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Posted:'Well, because I'm better-placed to think about these things, better trained, and generally better situated to appraise whether or not the bridge will stand up. Likewise, if someone asserts that the Earth is flat, and I disagree with them, they are so obviously wrong that I'm entitled to assert the superiority of my position.'

Engineers can prove (on a physical level) their conclusions so they must be believed. You are talking metaphysics, something that can't be proven. It's pretty cocky to say that you're 'better trained' in philosophy and that your opinion holds more wieght.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Icer

ok, i think ppl are confusing 'right' or 'correct' with 'valid'. they are not the same thing and when people say (like myself) that a point of view is valid, we not saying its right or that we agree with it. also there is a different between 'equal value' and 'equally valid'. it may seem like splitting hairs and fussing over semantics, but it matters.

i dont think its self-contradicting either.

if people dont agree with it then thats fine, your entitled to your own view, and your free to express it. i think thats what people call 'freedom of speech'. which, correct me if im wrong, is kinda founded on the fact that people have different views, which are equally valid, so should be able to express them. if they were not equally valid, why should they be allowed to express them?



So, could you explain what 'valid' does mean in this context?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: PsyRush

You are talking metaphysics, something that can't be proven. It's pretty cocky to say that you're 'better trained' in philosophy and that your opinion holds more wieght.



Metaphysics is the study of being and knowing (according to the dictionary). Sometimes it is also used to mean 'above' or 'beyond 'physics' ie philosophical questions concerning time, causation, matter etc.

Either way, despite the common belief that metaphysical issues can't be proven, the fact is that they can.

Admittedly, despite centuries of discussion, many issues of metaphysics don't have consensus amongst philosophers- this in no way renders them 'unprovable'; if anything it's more of a comment on the sad state of the philosophy establishment smile

In particular, it could well be a direct consequence on the bizarre insistance that there are no 'true answers', that all viewpoints are equally good (or 'valid', whatever that may mean)- a viewpoint which seems to rear it's head with issues that are 'difficult'.

IMO, if an issue is beyond someones grasp, they should consider just facing up to that, walking away, and leaving it to those who do have the ability to engage it; as opposed to saying 'I can't really understand this, therefore it must be something that has no possible answer'.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:i think in this context 'valid', means not that something is right or correct, but that who ever holds a view on anything has reasons for that view. those reasons are real and cogent for that person.
dont confuse valid with being good or correct, they are vastly different.

by asserting that some points of view are invalid, the next step is to remove those points of view from the population. that would lead to a whole heap of problems that im not going to get into, you can imagine what trying to force everyone to think the same thing exact thing would lead to.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Bah, you know as well as I do that there are huge differences between Empirical "Facts" (e.g. the bridge) and Ethical or Philosophical "Facts". Bad analogy there. Every single ethical situation is different, especially from opposite sides. If it was as easy as evaluating a bridge, then people would have stopped debating it long ago. The simple fact that people have been struggling over the same issues for 4000 years implies to me that there can be no set answer.

Whatever ethical viewpoint you advance, it will be affected by your time, place, culture, upbringing and so on and so forth. Therefore everyone has a unique take on every unique situation. Therefore stating that your own position is inherently superior to other's is stupid.

Take your other example: The Holocaust. I *could* say that it was a good thing because it united the Allies against the Nazis. Countries fought when they might otherwise have thought "Is it really so bad?". And what the troops discovered in the Concentration camps meant that Germany was put under harsh sanctions, when otherwise it might have got off lightly and gone for WW3... (note this is pure hypothesis, and is not my own viewpoint. Therefore it should not offend anyone)

I say that I have a point of view. Say it's on abortion. I can *prove* that abortion is a good thing. I can also *prove* that it is a cruel and inhumane thing. Can anyone tell me which is correct? I don't think so.

Another example. Murder. Is it wrong? Presumably it must be, because the vast majority of countries have laws against it. But how many possible mitigating circumstances are there? How many times could you say that murder was justified? Even moral "Absolutes" have to be bent sometimes.

I've got nothing against asserting your own point of view. I have problems with people forcing their point of view on others.

Written by: onewheeldave

To be consistent in your belief (than all opinions are equal) you must therefore acknowledge that you don't have any grounds whatsoever in critising that opposing view, as, by your own reasoning, it's just as valid as your own.

ie the view that all opinions are of equal value, is self contradicting.




I don't see the contradiction. Of course you can criticise other people's point of view. That's the whole idea behind ethical debate. And their opinions are just as valid as your own. What part of this is contradictory?


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Icer

i think in this context 'valid', means not that something is right or correct, but that who ever holds a view on anything has reasons for that view. those reasons are real and cogent for that person.
dont confuse valid with being good or correct, they are vastly different.

by asserting that some points of view are invalid, the next step is to remove those points of view from the population. that would lead to a whole heap of problems that im not going to get into, you can imagine what trying to force everyone to think the same thing exact thing would lead to.



OK. Then, by that definition, everyones opinion is valid, but some opinions are wrong?

If so, then I can go along with it, simply substitute 'invalid' with wrong in all my previous posts on the issue.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:"OK. Then, by that definition, everyones opinion is valid, but some opinions are wrong?"
---yea, thats spot on. but your 'wrong' might be 'right' for someone else. sethis' example of the holocaust is a good example of that.

people do need to realise that 'right' or 'wrong' is subjective. different people will have different views on what is right and wrong. that is why we have diversity in the world. thats why we have these discussions here. you think you are right and i think i am right, some people will agree with you, some with me, sometimes im sure we will even agree with each other.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:No.

You can have 'valid' and consign it to your wishy-washy world of terms that mean nothing- but you're not ruining 'right' and 'wrong'.

Pi is an irrational number, the first three digits of which are 3.14....

If someone claims that pi=4, then they are wrong.

Absolutely wrong, 100% wrong.

I don't care how 'diverse' they are, or how many other people they get to agree with them; they're just plain wrong, pi does not equal 4.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:ok, so ill refine what i said and say that quantifiable things like maths or physics or whatever can be right and wrong. like the engineer with the bridge.

but qualifiable things like morals or ideologies or whatever are subjectively right or wrong. like the holocaust example.



i hope you dont think quantifiable and qualifiable are part of my 'wishy-washy world of terms that mean nothing', you can use empirical and ethical respectivily, if you would prefer.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

screech


screech

circling on the edge of madness
Location: away with the faeries

Total posts: 889
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

ie the view that all opinions are of equal value, is self contradicting.



no its not it just says that saying opinions are not all equally valid is a valid argument as well but from the point of view of the person saying it all opinions are equally valid who is to if say their point of view is right or wrong. ubbloco


finland finland finland
the country where i want to be
pony trekking or camping
or just watching tv

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:and what everyone is saying about engineers.... really it's still an educated guess if they are trying to predict the future. if 2 people have differing views on whether a bridge will stand, and it is currently standing who is wrong? or are they looking at plans? opinions of this sort are surely nothing but guesses based on current knowledge.

People are gonna hate me for this but:



who said the holocaust was wrong from an "amoral" (not immoral) standpoint. Humans are destroying the planet (any arguments?) so destruction of humanity = protection of the planet. (ok very vague argument but surely a valid point of view) as I said earlier right and wrong are based on a moral stand-point taken from the average human belief.... who is to say humans are right!!!. and the average is correct.

From this perspective eating meat is correct and vegetarians are "wrong" because they come from a minority moral standpoint.



Philanthropically speaking Quiet I agree with you 100% but as an overview on validity of a point of view (i'm picking on your words)

If humans are the be all and end all the holocaust was wrong (i agree. on a moral standpoint, just using this as an extreme example) If you take a global/ universal/ total view. the less humans about the better chance of living nearly every other creature on this planet has.

A point of view can be correct or in-correct but an in-correct point of view may still have validity, if only to prove another point of view correct.

(I don't mean to offend but do like to discuss from the least popular angle hug)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

LMSP
BRONZE Member since Aug 2005

LMSP

veteran


Total posts: 1588
Posted:I started to read this and then gave up. you guys are too deep for me lol
my religion is sex, drugs and hardhouse euphoria (Vol 2 teehee)


Delete

Page: 123456...16

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [religion mental illnes*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Cartoons, Fun, Jokes > Pictures, Cartoons, Meme > Poi is good for your mental wellbeing *help/resource
2. Forums > Religion: A mental illness? [465 replies]
3. Forums > When does religion become extremeism [61 replies]
4. Forums > dominance of religion [45 replies]
5. Forums > JUDGEMENT DAY, for religion [60 replies]

     Show more..