Philosophical Musings

[Locke]

I'm going to start this out by saying that I'd like this thread to be purely for philosophical debate about things. Opinions are fine, just make sure you have good reasoning behind it. Nothing to be posted about "I think X and that's all there is to it", instead try posting stuff like "I think X because..."

Anyways, I know it might be a tall order, but I'd like to try at least.

So, to open the floor....

************************
What are everybodies thoughts on perception of the world? How do we know that the world we put together in our minds eye is real, and how do we know that what we see is correct?
************************

I know this could potentially get out of hand, but I ask that people try to keep this academic.

[Epology]

One of the harder questions, even for professionals.

My answer is, that we can't know at all that we are living in a "real" world.
Folks who are into Biology know, that everything we see is a compilation and calculation of our minds. As well as everything we hear. There is no perception that can not be a victim of what we humans would call an "illusion". For example, there is no difference for the human brain, if it percieves a "real" scenery, or just a picture. If it was taken with more than 4 MegaPixel, there is no difference to us, exept for the fact, that we know that it is a piece of paper with some ink on it. Another example are video games or movies. The biological reactions while playing an epic battle game, or being in war are similar.(Of course the surrounding play into the calculation as well.)

Descartes figured that out a few hundret years ago, the only thing we can rely on is, that "we are". Cogito ergo sum.

Dang it, I always mix them up.^^

[silverDistortioN]

Kant figured that out a few hundret years ago, the only thing we can rely on is, that "we are". Cogito ergo sum.Cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am. Once uttered by a certain Rene Descartes.

I believe the only purpose in denying our perception of reality as reality itself is to have something interesting to talk about.

But there are other interesting things (http://www.alessonislearned.com/lesson034.html) to talk about.

[Locke]

It's also got something to do with how you look at things. We really have no way of knowing things for sure because there is no possible way to prove that reality as we conceive it to be truly exists. To me it's more of a way to seperate people who take a belief based view of the world and people who take an unbiased view of the world.

[Epology]

Agreed. I do not believe in any kind of god, but how can anybody claim wisdom or even truth if he knows nothing? Though, if you follow Descartes, you will be lonely soon.^^
Besides the fact that philosophers are always lonely, most people don't really like it to be told that their believes are based on nothing but their little brain.

[silverDistortioN]

Define what it means to know.

[Zeugma 440]

I agree with Epology's take on the subject. All the information about the surrounding world we are provided with are interpretations of what people perceive.

We tend to rely on our own interpretations as they seem to be the least distorted of all. However, our way of seeing things is heavily biased by several factors we aren't necessarily conscious of :
- general knowledge (we're able to perceive an transparent, flat and solid wall portion as "glass" whereas babies and animals try to reach for what's behind without understanding what happens)
- social culture (we can see "troubles" by seeing a smashed car and kids wih baseball bats around it)
- personal mental factors (phobias, obsessions, misunderstandings...)
- and so on


Our goal isn't to perceive reality the best way possible : such a thing is unfeasible. The average man actually doesn't even care if what he see is right or not, like the paranoid one who sees danger everywhere without even asking himself if that makes sense. The only difference between our attitude and pathologic ones is that ours is "sociologically correct" : it is the way of the masses; in other words, it is normality.

[Locke]

Define what it means to know.
To me I'd say that to know something would mean that you are positive on the statement and that it is a "true" statement. Now, I don't know if it's possible to ever be 100% positive on it, and therefore it might just not be possible to "know" anything.

[silverDistortioN]

To me I'd say that to know something would mean that you are positive on the statement and that it is a "true" statement. Now, I don't know if it's possible to ever be 100% positive on it, and therefore it might just not be possible to "know" anything.Then what is the point of having the word "know" in your vocabulary?

I want to ask a question, but for the sake of not having to wait a day, I'll give your answer myself. Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous.

"How tall is Mt. Saint Helens?"
"I don't know."

Wouldn't this use be redundant? That is, if you realize that knowledge is only an unprovable perception, and you continue to use the word "know", are you not really using some other definition of the word?


Further, supposing our perception of reality is false and that there is some higher, unadulturated form of reality we cannot comprehend, would it not follow that there must also be a perception of this reality? That is, if there is some "pure" reality, either it would be at least partially understandable to some theoretical (if not practical) degree, or it would be beyond the scope of any comprehension, human or otherwise.

From this, we get either
1) it can be understood (and thus it can be perceived and is therefore a potential perception) or
2) it cannot be understood (and thus any effort in attempting to understand it will be fruitless).

If 1 were true, it would follow that there must be some perception of this ethereal "higher reality."

If 2 were true, would it not follow that any statement we can make about this reality is, by its falling outside of comprehension, inherently false?


At this point I'll pause and address any arguments.


Of course, you could say that logic doesn't exist and none of this is true, to which I would respond: you think, therefore you aren't.

[Epology]

Rather good argument you provide here.

I think that point 2 of your demonstration is not significant; what is not possible to achieve or reach, is not worth thinking about. Besides the fact, that one might understand that there is something else than what one can think of or imagine.

The possibility that humans are able to percieve "reality" is more likely though.If we take our daily observations (Which, of course can be corrupted as well.) into consideration we should be able to discern certain stages of development.

Small Babys do not have any kind of bias. They do not understand the characteristics of certain objects, for example glas. Since they can see through it, it does not exist in their brains, except for the case when they can percieve it with their skin.

Persons who, after developing in a common surrounding (differs in all countries or regions) are cogntively limited. Means that these persons identify things differently than others with more experience(social) or knowledge(theoretical). Therefore, they create another reality.
It can't be denied that humans who went to higher institutions like university, have a much wider spectrum of interpretation and consequently can see happenigs in a clearer way.

Buddhism claims to have found a way to reach transcendental heights and reach something of a state of total independance and freedom from all earthly impacts, called Nirvana. The point is that even outsiders can tell that buddhist monks are able of percieving more than they themselves can.
For example are they capable of controlling their body to the extreme. Four monks burned themselves to death and didn't move a bit while the flames were consuming their bodies.

In my book, it is definetly possible to reach higher levels of perception. Though I do not know, if there are informations/interpretations that are not available anymore to those who have passed to other spiritual realms.

[silverDistortioN]

Yes, anyway...

I think that point 2 of your demonstration is not significant; what is not possible to achieve or reach, is not worth thinking about. Besides the fact, that one might understand that there is something else than what one can think of or imagine.Firstly, that was the point of point 2 of my demonstration. Secondly, I never denied that there can be something beyond our comprehension.

Now, my conclusion:
Reality can only be experienced through perception. Therefore, it is of little use denying any perception of reality as if it were a lie unless there is some sort of concrete evidence to that effect. Or more accurately, it's stupid to deny any version of reality simply because "it's only a perception."

As for the rest of what you said, I agree with your general sentiment, but I disagree with pretty much everything else.

[silverDistortioN]

Are justice and mercy opposites?

(Feel free to respond here, Daniel. But I advise examples of criminals be non-muslim.)

[SeymourGuado]

Jutsice and mercy opposites. Well, I guess that would depend on the situ like everything there is not 1 clear explanation or reason. There is generally not 1 answer.

I would say no they are not opposite, but at times they definately conflict. Humans are controlled by their emotions and by their fears/pain. nature uses pain as a deterrent, it always has. The best example is that when you catch your penis in a zip, you don't do it again;)

The point is, to achieve justice in criminal cases, there has to be punishment; involving pain to degrees. Boredom, loss of freedom, hard labour and in some cases the death penalty.

The opposite of Justice is miscarriage of justice or allowing one to escape justice.

Mercy must, in most cases, for the benefit of the law abiding remain at different levels. The more severe the crime, the less mercy you must have. Until finally you reach the most heinous crimes, and mercy is 0.

So of course in this case it depends on the crime. This is 1 road of your question. There will be more. I dealt with my views on the criminal justice system :)

The more mercy you have for a crime, the less you have for the law abiding. - DLPB

--------------

Ifeel you being rather unfair there silver, as I have outlined my plan to stay away from the topics some feel unable to debate and I now respect the fact that this is not my site. (something I have admitted i never respected before) [see the summing up thread i made for more]

Of course my days of bad behaviour, heated discussion and lengthy posts are behind me. I won't be commenting on Islam again, I feel we all know what i think about the most common various political and social topics:)

I do find your rule of making people use only 1 section of society as examples to be rather PC however, but my intention is to never bring up "them topics" here again anyway, examples or otherwise (this topic has nothing to do with which religion you belong to, as it applies worldwide to all humans). I may make my own site one day for such unrestricted speech.

You don't need to tell me that criminals can be non muslim, I live in a place wheer we have large muslim gangs but also white thugs, non asian retards.

This debate is a general question and like I say, I will be avoiding single topics i have in the past answered as best i could and to be fair, answered continuously and to the point of ridiculous repetition.

[silverDistortioN]

I didn't mean to be unfair, I just particularly wanted to hear from you on this and didn't want you to shy away from it as a potentially controversial topic.

And a follow-up question:

What is the difference between vengeance and justice (with regards to the victim)?

[SeymourGuado]

np silver:)

Well i guess on this I would say vengeance can be a justice for the victim, albeit illegal if you mean it as vigilante or revenge attack.

Example: 7 year old daughter is raped and murdered. Murderer gets 10 years in jail (uk we talkin about here, it happens). Was this justice? no. So, if the courts failed, then in this case I believe a revenge attack would be 100% justified. The courts in this case did not do their job and , ultimately have also most likely left a dangerous man onto the streets.

justice is a word that describes just punishment or a just event, it doesn't in my opinion mean that the courts are the only ones that can give justice. Sometimes they fail completely.

I would say the difference is that if the person believes that justice has not been served, they will most likely want vengeance (see Jamie Bulger case wiki). If justice is done, then this is seen as the real punishment and even in small cases the matter is usually closed.

lack of justice creates lasting vengeance in victims. That is my take.

onto the main point: Your comparison, I would say that of course justice ultimately means punishing ergo it is (in the courts atleast) a legal vengeance. Revenge is soemthing that everyone has in them, when they are a victim. It is another human trait we have encoded into us. I don't know about difference. I think that the two are regulated depending on whther the victim feels satisfied with the perceived justice.

And each person is different. 1 may be very forgiving whilst the other completely flips.

[SeymourGuado]

where did you go silver, how rude of you to leave me in the middle of a musing!:D

[silverDistortioN]

I've been meaning to reply here for the past few days, but I'm kinda busy at the moment. I just moved to California, you see. My bad. =)

Also, I don't have a whole lot to add, but I'll respond in full when I have a little more time. >.>

[Mithrandir]

I'll hicjack this thread for the sake of mankind.

I realised sometime last year that there are so many philosophers that have their own vision of the human being. But when you look at all those visions, you realise the human being is mainly motivated by egoism.

Let's take Jean-Jacques Rousseau, If I recall correctly, this guy said that in his true nature, the human being thought only to himself.

If you look at Nietszche, he said the human being longed for the will to power. To elevate himself over others.

If you look at some others philiosophers, it's rather the contrary. The human being is compassionate and needs others to live and fulfill himself.

Now, when I look at my actions, everything I do is in my own interest. Even the simple form of help I do is to get something that is good for me. Which is why I've come to the conclusion that the human being is only motivated by its own well-being. But think of it, no action is 100% selflessness thought. Which is why Maslow was right. A human has needs and it does everything to fulfill those needs. And the top levels are esteem and self-actualization.

What do you guys think?

[SeymourGuado]

I am not so sure. I know that alot of what I do is for myself in small or large ways, and I know there are many who are almost 100% selfish.

But I do do things purely selfless. When you help a random stranger who you will never see again, surely this is a selfless act?

I have doen this before, I am sure we all have

I think it depends on person, but I also suspect a majority of actions are selfish but not all. I think humans need each other in wider world. Perhaps the need to be selfless sometimes is a basic built in instinct...In that way perhaps we are not all selfish and driven by ego but a mixture.

I prefer to believe that the human being isnt just 1 thing but a diverse range as it often tends to be:talk::spin:

[BAMAToNE]

But I do do things purely selfless. When you help a random stranger who you will never see again, surely this is a selfless act?
But perhaps you're just doing it so you can feel good about yourself? If that is the case, either consciously or subconsciously, it would still be about your wellbeing, and not the stranger's. ;)

[Mithrandir]

Eaxctly my point.

I argue a lot with co-workers regarding my point of view and that always comes to when you help someone. You'll still feel good about helping someone, hoping that in someway, he'll help you indirectly or that, someone else will do the same thing for you if you ever get in the same situation.

[SeymourGuado]

i thought of that, but I know partly i like to see ppl happy, even if i am not directly involved. You could argue always that I am happy seeing others happy, but then, nothing we do could ever be for any good.

I believe alot of nature is selfish but atleast some must be selfless...no part of human make up is a 1 or the other. Wouldn't you agree it is always a diverse range? And if so, shouldn't this be the same?

It is a nice question, and I agree mostly with your view, but not all; I think there is a margin. An inbetween. It is possible all human actions come down to a basic law and preprogrammed nature, but if so, theer is no real free will...I tend to believe we do have choices and can also fight in part, our anamalistic program.

:D

[Cyrano de Hero]

I think it's impossible to do something that is 100% selfless, just as I believe that it's impossible to do something that is 100% selfish. Think of it this way: you buy a homeless guy a sandwich. You spend your own money, your own time, and your own effort. Even though that you clearly gave him the sandwich with no expectation of material benefit, you're still helping yourself by the good feelings you get from the transaction.

On the other end: you steal a homeless man's sandwich. (gross!) You take advantage of the time, effort and (possibly) money he used to aquire that sandwich. You clearly had no regard for anyone but yourself. But, does this not teach him to be more careful with his possesions? Some would argue that if he wasn't powerful enough to keep it, he didn't deserve it and you've done the world a favor by crushing a weak man.

[SeymourGuado]

:rofl:

I will be sure to watch out for you cyrano (and how could i miss that nose) if I am ever homeless. You ain't havin my sarny! ;) But yeah I see the point:evilgrin:

[BAMAToNE]

If you are 100% selfless, then basically you are a saint - a word which gets thrown around a lot but isn't usually used correctly. :)

[SeymourGuado]

If you are 100% selfless, then basically you are a saint - why thanks bama:D