  |
|
 |
Philosophy or sophistry |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
PO Info |
 |
Shurikane
Dim Panties As String
Joined: 24 Sep 2002 |
 Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:07 am Post subject: |
| Blues wrote: | | Right and wrong, of both the ethical and moral stripes, are illusions, fabrications of the human condition. They are unnatural constructs designed to help our narrow minds percieve the world. |
If those concepts didn't exist then, how would we live life? For the better or for worse? |
_________________
Gopher it.
"Remember when /b/ was good?"
"/b/ was never good." |
|
|
 |
 |
Wins 24 - Losses 32
Level 8 |
EXP: 2375
HP: 2550
 |
STR: 1050
END: 750
ACC: 800
AGI: 600
|
Graduate's Windbuster (Sword)
(230 - 480) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blues
High Lord Mescaline
Gender: 
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:15 am Post subject: |
I'm not saying we don't use 'em. Shoot, I use them every day. We all do. But it's fake; it's just something to rationalize our actions.
of course, in the context of this thread, saying that would be a form of sophistry. But now I'm overanalyzing myself. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Wins 31 - Losses 27
Level 9 |
EXP: 3548
HP: 2300
|
STR: 700
END: 800
ACC: 900
AGI: 900
|
Inizio and Estremità (Gun)
(200 - 540) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whiteypoker
Junior Otaku
Gender:
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am Post subject: |
How is it that you use something that is fake for a tangible purpose. Its like using fake toliet paper to wipe your tooter, like using fake cars to travel to work, like using fake logic to arrive at a true conclusion. I'm not denying the possibility, rather questioning the practicality. |
_________________
A.F. & A.M. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blues
High Lord Mescaline
Gender:
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:53 am Post subject: |
| whiteypoker wrote: | | How is it that you use something that is fake for a tangible purpose. Its like using fake toliet paper to wipe your tooter, like using fake cars to travel to work, like using fake logic to arrive at a true conclusion. I'm not denying the possibility, rather questioning the practicality. |
People use faulty logic to arrive at accurate conclusions all the time by mere coincidence; a car without an engine or any moving parts can get you to work provided you don't mind pushing it with your feet occasionaly; and paper by any other name can be used as toilet paper, regardless of it's original purpose.
My point is that it is entirely possible for something that exists purely within our minds, such as right or wrong, or morality, or whatever, to have a practical application on our lives while still remaining patently false.
To use another example, we have no evidence that God exists, but this hardly prevents God from affecting people's lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wins 31 - Losses 27
Level 9 |
EXP: 3548
HP: 2300
|
STR: 700
END: 800
ACC: 900
AGI: 900
|
Inizio and Estremità (Gun)
(200 - 540) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tobias
*explodes*
Age: 38
Gender:
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:41 pm Post subject: |
ok...its time for a good ol Pre-Socratic example of Sophistry...from our good ol friend Zeno
The Argument of Achilles vs the Tortise
Now, Achilles is the fastest runner in the Trojan war...so lets pit him against a Tortise...should be a fair race, right? We shall give the tortise a 100 yard lead, for the start. Achilles runs 10 times faster than the tortise...just to give you the idea of our race.
The race starts. Achilles runs 100 yards...the tortise goes 10 ahead of him.
Achilles runs that 10 yards, that tortise has gone 1 yard ahead...still in front.
Achilles runs that 1 yard, and when he gets to the tortise, the tortise has ran .1 yards.
Achilles runs that .1 yards, and when he gets to the tortise, the tortise has ran .01 yards.
In theory, Achilles will never reach the target, due to the fact that the tortise is always in constant motion, so he always stays ahead...we all know that that IS wrong, due to the fact that we can clearly watch Achilles not only run past the tortise, but reach the finish line, fight off the trojans, get shot in the foot and die, and the tortise would have yet to reach the finish line 
Another example would be from my friend Parmenidies, who was Zeno's teacher. This would be the arrow-to-the-target theory
An archer shoots his arrow to a target. In order for the arrow to reach it's target, it must go half the distance.
And the arrow has to go half that distance.
And the arrow has to go half THAT distance
And the arrow has to go HALF THAT distance
And the arrow has to go HALF THAT DISTANCE...
and so on, and so forth.
Its plausable, in case of facts and theory...but at the same time, we all have witnessed an arrow (or a projectile for that matter) soaring through the air and nailing its target dead-on. The funny thing is that Sophists at that time made a killing off of teaching that practice
Also, lest anyone forget to mention...a sophist works and requires a fee to teach his ideals. A philosopher has no need for money, since it is just in the hunger ideals of the man, or it is in his good nature to execute his ideals free of charge for the sake of humanity
------------------------------------------
Phew...now, the real topic....what is right and what is wrong.
(get ready...this is the best answer i can think of)
Right and wrong is right AND wrong. While they dont exist, they do exist, much like the Majayana buddhist's teaching of samsara and Nirvana being one and together...in order to have one, you must have the other. In order for right to be right, and wrong to be wrong, they must both be right and wrong.
In other words...live your day, and forget about these questions...due to the fact that they make your head go topsy tervy
*explodes*
That is all |
_________________
I am not afraid to die today
Nor afraid of what Death will bring.
 |
|
|
|
 |
Wins 112 - Losses 110
Level 16 |
EXP: 535
HP: 3000
|
STR: 1000
END: 1000
ACC: 1000
AGI: 1000
|
Eden (Sword)
(475 - 475) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whiteypoker
Junior Otaku
Gender:
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:09 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: |
My point is that it is entirely possible for something that exists purely within our minds, such as right or wrong, or morality, or whatever, to have a practical application on our lives while still remaining patently false
|
What is it about something existing purely in the mind that makes it false? If you were to push a car to work, you would not be traveling via that vehicle; you would be walking. I can't really defend the toilet paper thing. I just threw that out there because it sounded funny in my head...and people arriving at accurate conclusions via faulty logic is a means versus ends question (is it the means or the end which determine an act legitimacy), which we could start a thread about.
| Quote: | | To use another example, we have no evidence that God exists, but this hardly prevents God from affecting people's lives. |
Unfortunantly, you also don't have any evidence to suggest that he does not exist. So if you are going to say that things don't exist because we do not have proof they exist, I again ask, "What is the definition of proof?" and, "What level of proof is necessary to prove the existance of something?"
Good example of sophistry Tobias. Though you answered the question of whether or not right and wrong exist separately or together, I'm a little fuzzy about the rest of it. You might be able to argue, perhaps, that one is simply the lack of the other. Keep on getting topsy turvy.
To use another example, we have no evidence that God exists, but this hardly prevents God from affecting people's lives.
[/quote] |
_________________
A.F. & A.M. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blues
High Lord Mescaline
Gender:
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject: |
| whiteypoker wrote: |
What is it about something existing purely in the mind that makes it false? |
Because it's only real to you. What one person considers absolute truth could be blundering foolishness in the mind of another.Trying to say there's a definite right and wrong is a falsehood, even moreso saying you know what it is. We might consider, say, cannibalism to be wrong, but the cannibal certainly wouldn't think so. Who are we to say he's wrong? And by the same token, how is he sure he's right? Is a majority opinion the definition of what is right?
| Quote: | | Unfortunantly, you also don't have any evidence to suggest that he does not exist. So if you are going to say that things don't exist because we do not have proof they exist, I again ask, "What is the definition of proof?" and, "What level of proof is necessary to prove the existance of something?" |
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of anything by that argument since proof is subjective, as we already know. If something cannot be proven or disproven, it's up in the air and is therefore a matter of belief. Example: I don't believe in God, but God can still have an impact on someone via their belief in his existence. That is the point I was trying to make. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wins 31 - Losses 27
Level 9 |
EXP: 3548
HP: 2300
|
STR: 700
END: 800
ACC: 900
AGI: 900
|
Inizio and Estremità (Gun)
(200 - 540) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whiteypoker
Junior Otaku
Gender:
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:54 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: |
Because it's only real to you. What one person considers absolute truth could be blundering foolishness in the mind of another.Trying to say there's a definite right and wrong is a falsehood, even moreso saying you know what it is.
|
How do you know from your limited self imposed view of "truth" that it therefore affects everybody else? If you're saying that one can only know personal truth, how do you know what the truth is of everybody else? How do you know that this mechinism applys to all other entities? How is it possible that you and I go into a forest and see a tree standing in front of us, that we both agree that the tree is there? If truth is purely personal, it would seem that we would not share this experience.
It is impossible to prove something, however, it is not impossible to disprove something. Therefore belief cannot, under your model be used here. Why do you believe there is no God since it is theoretically or hypethetically possible to disprove his existance?
 |
_________________
A.F. & A.M. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blues
High Lord Mescaline
Gender:
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject: |
Now you're confusing me. If nothing can be proven, how can something be disproved? If one is impossible than the other should be equally impossible.
| Quote: | | Why do you believe there is no God since it is theoretically or hypethetically possible to disprove his existance? |
Err... what? If I can disprove his existence, why SHOULDN'T I believe he doesn't exist? If I can prove something to be untrue, why would I believe it?
You make no sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wins 31 - Losses 27
Level 9 |
EXP: 3548
HP: 2300
|
STR: 700
END: 800
ACC: 900
AGI: 900
|
Inizio and Estremità (Gun)
(200 - 540) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shurikane
Dim Panties As String
Joined: 24 Sep 2002 |
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:42 pm Post subject: |
Tangent time! \o_O/
Seeing the topic about God's existence, I'd like to tell the story of Shrödinger's Cat.
This man placed a cat in a box, and then asked the question: Is the cat alive, or is the cat dead? Assume you can't open the box...
Yet, there is no way to know if the cat's alive or dead other than by opening the box and looking into it.
It was therefore concluded that the cat is both alive and dead, for neither fact has been proven false, at least yet. We know though that both possibilities exist.
With the same procedure, we could say God both exists and doesn't exist, because neither has been proven false. So, until we find out, either works. Technically, I could go as far as say that the world was created by Pakestanese clams and there wouldn't be any way of proving it's false. People would get a good laugh at me  but they wouldn't be able to prove anything (nor would I be able to prove that the world truly was made by those yummy Pakestanese clams!)
That's one way to look at it.
------------------------------------
Add-on to Zeno: He also put forth the "proof" that things cannot move, by putting the example of the arrow as an infinitesimal frame-by-frame sequence of immobilities. |
_________________
Gopher it.
"Remember when /b/ was good?"
"/b/ was never good." |
|
|
|
|
Wins 24 - Losses 32
Level 8 |
EXP: 2375
HP: 2550
|
STR: 1050
END: 750
ACC: 800
AGI: 600
|
Graduate's Windbuster (Sword)
(230 - 480) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
