quote
follow
|
08-09-2012 axioms defied is self-evident principle. so faith is required to accept the premise. which is an appeal to belief. that is an example of how logic invalidates logic.''which of the fallacies would it be?'' black white thinking then you commit a strawman. ''logic: is the methodology to reason.'' ''reason: is the capacity to make sense of things.'' ''sense: is any of the faculties, as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch, by whichВ humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from (outside or inside the body.)'' and anybody who has read descartes can understand the senses are untrustworthy. and anyone who has read david hume understands that the objective or external world is also untrustworthy. ''truth: defied is actuality or actual existence.'' ''existence: is the state of existing'' ''exist: is to have actual being'' ''being: is the fact of existing.'' this is straight from the dictionary or ''professionals'' and this is called circular reasoning which is a fallicy. this is another example of prt1 |
|
08-09-2012 prt2 how logic invalidates logic00000011111111000111000 1100110101 |
|
08-09-2012 reason is irrational.truth is untruth. existence is non-existence |
|
08-09-2012 simplified isA=B (begging the question) B=C C=D D=E A and E are unprovable. it counties to infiniti. unless you say because E = A which is what is most comman in so-called ''intellectual'' circles logic but that is a circular argument which is a paradox. or circular reasoning. or the other known alternative is A and E are self evident which is appeal to belief or authority and of course that is illogical so yes logic is illogical now give me an apologie lmao. |
[ link ] |
08-09-2012
A=B (begging the question) truth is untruth. existence is non-existence So truth (A) = untruth (B) is a but another conclusion that is begging the question then? Seems like you can't make any claim that wouldn't in the same time be untrue. You can't challenge anything as well. You undermine your own reasoning by this. Interesting. |
|
08-09-2012 (ahahahaha, somebody let the gate open last night...)You're B-O-R-I-N-G to the point of laughter... does that sound illogical enough to you? Surely not... apology is gratitude, and the other way round, you know what I mean... (Please, somebody takes care to close the gate tonight...) |
|
08-09-2012 (free) advertisement:Get your stay (whatever institution you are in) paid by the self-evident appealing authorities! No need to hurry, just fill in the form and send it to... SOMEWHERE! (urgent-mode, the college you evidently attended will do the rest) |
[ link ] |
08-09-2012
Zenner, for a change such comments are entertaining.))) However there are some valid questions to be raised regarding determinism (free will or not), epistemology (how do we know what we know), our logic... I just don't like them being raised predominantly in order to get a licence to do anything one pleases and justify those actions as acceptable because we can't know anything with 100% certainty. You have really nothing to say to those people. You don't know anything? Everything is everything and nothing and whatever? All right then, I guess this is the end of discussion then, we're just wasting our breath, right? |
|
09-09-2012 Agree to both paragraphs.Btw, anything ending in -logy drives me crazy... epistemology, archaeology, cosmology... Though I have to admit that the latter sometimes makes me feel blue. It's so heartbreaking to see such fine areas of whitish-greyish matter in the universe going through tormenting storms and turning into chaotic supernovas! But that too shall pass... |
|
14-09-2012 Tragic AccidentPerhaps all of life is a tradgedy, but at least it is something. The absence of things is where most suffering comes from, the absence of life, while this is a very lofty abstract idea, or at least human life, seems to deal cards to the "grand scheme of the universe" as something bad, and suffering of another level, perhaps not ours, but is this not the same selfishness you complain of, the same act that endows our world with suffering in the first place? If we are the result of our environment, then such a thought as ending life for the purpose of not allowing suffering would effectively defeat the purpose, for no life would be saved to enjoy happiness. I don't think I'd have created a world where people would be put in this position. On this point we will have little common ground. I believe we cannot know the ultimate reasons for this world because I believe in God, you do not, but if a world is created outside the realms of sentient will, such as God, then it was not likely "created" in that sense, thus you are left with but one thing, your actions, and not the results of another over you. So the world you create is the one that is here and now, not the biblical one you seem to infer, yet hold no faith in. Can there be no greater glory for mankind than to overcome what is suboptimal and find a place that belongs to us without such suffering and pain? Can you tolerate not even the smallest bit of suffering, no matter how mild or how short lived? What if we could come to terms with a world like that, one that is devoid of most suffering except for the most extreme cases, true exceptions, then if it is but as nature would have it, and not the whim of mankind, could you not see a world there you would want to live in? What's wrong with fragile? Fragile is precious. . . . . if someone is suffering in front of you and that doesn't affect your happiness that's not 'strong', that's insensitive and selfish Fragile is weakness. Diamonds are precious, and ridiculously strong. There is saying in ancient oriental proverbs that goes as follows, "There is only one thing worse than fighting, and that is not knowing how." Strong is when you CAN suffer and feel for those around you and yet keep your composure and try to do something about it. Selfish is the notion that we should not have to see it so WE don't suffer the idea of our lot, our good fortune, vs the pigeons. A fireman storms into a home to savea child from burning alive, even when he knows he could very well end up dead as well. It is one's nature that dictates strength, and what you do in the face of suffering, yours, or someone else's. We are best served when we face our conditions and those around us, and we take action to do something about it. And what is a value of happiness? It is not the foolish joy of laughter and merriment, those are symptoms, the effect of happiness is growth, of betterment, of knowing success, of being better than you were. False happiness such as material things and "sinful" things are not truly happiness at all. I would concur that those deep and thoughtful moments of happiness is what we live for, and there is no place else you will find contentment like that. It transcends, your word, all the suffering and it defeats all the misery we know. Are they few and short lived in our lives, for most, probably, but there effect is long lasting. The know suffering only because of a lack of degree of happiness is a fool-hardy way to see the world, especially when REAL suffering does abound. I don't have much faith in anything. Irina, I frankly don't either, just what I can feel and what has been born out over time to prove itself reliable. what are those things? Suffering, pain, misery, cruelty, etc. These are the staples in life that we have more often than not to choose from. That said, I have seen good, and decency, and kindness over and over again, and I know there are people out there that have "figured it out", and when we meet them, we keep them, and we do in kind for others based upon the examples around us. If we just find people who we can trust to do right, we start to do the same. As a psyche major, I assume you know that the mind is very often inclined to conform to the surroundings it is in. Set an example, and then find those like your example, and people will start to emulate each other. No, you won't turn the whole of China into perfect souls over night, but you might just stop one or two peoples suffering in this world one day. . . (cont) |
[ link ] |
14-09-2012
The absence of things is where most suffering comes from, the absence of life Example? Of how the absense of life causes suffering? I am not aware of any. On the contrary, whenever I see suffering life is present as well. for no life would be saved to enjoy happiness. Yes, it's a horrid tragedy there is no life on other planets. Nobody is enjoying happiness on Saturn or Venus. On this point we will have little common ground. I believe we cannot know the ultimate reasons for this world because I believe in God Even if someone believes in a creator it does not automatically mean that person is bound to worship it and agree with it's supposed plan. I do not need to know whether god exists or not. I do not deal with god, I deal with this world and I judge this world regardless of what, who, with or without any purpose created it, if it was created at all. Can there be no greater glory for mankind than to overcome what is suboptimal and find a place that belongs to us without such suffering and pain? Why should I care for glory? Why should I want to be glorious? Can you tolerate not even the smallest bit of suffering, no matter how mild or how short lived? For what? For somebody's plan? I just want the right to choose for myself: Whether, When, Where to live and to die. I don't wan't to be decided for what is tolerable and what isn't and assigned a purpose of glory or whatever else. I want a choice. I have none. And you're trying to convince me it's all right that I'm powerless over the most important issues. What if we could come to terms with a world like that, one that is devoid of most suffering except for the most extreme cases Fine, as long as you exclude me and people like me from your plan. So far: a) there is no such world in any forseable future b) you can't guarantee every life you create will appreciate being created Fragile is weakness. ... Strong is when you CAN suffer and feel for those around you and yet keep your composure and try to do something about it. Kids are fragile. They're weak. Yet we admire them for their innocence and purity. Only to break them later and tell them to be strong and learn to tolerate the crap we imposed on them. A fireman storms into a home to savea child from burning alive, even when he knows he could very well end up dead as well. Yes, but what would you say to a fireman that first starts the fire then goes in to put some of it out? Because that's what we are doing here. Creating people who will suffer, then praise ourselves for building clinics to treat them. Did you notice you didn't define happiness? You said what it is not, and pointed to it's effects. My definition of happiness would be something you feel at the moment, something so perfect that you wish it would last forever. I've had a few moments like that and many more close to it. But they do not "defeats all the misery we know". How? I don't think my happiness is of any use to someone starving to death or being tortured by a serial killer. Does my happiness make all that go away? Do they on the other side of the planet feel relieved by the fact there are some people experiencing profound bliss at the moment they are enduring horryfic anguish? but you might just stop one or two peoples suffering in this world one day. . . That is beside the point. You keep arguing it is possible to mitigate some of the suffering. I don't disagree with that. I'm just asking what good reason do we have for enabling it in the first place (by having children)? |
|
14-09-2012 (cont) . . .But who said I must be willing to know anything? Good or bad, sadness or happiness? This is a selfish and self centered argument based upon the capricious notion that you simply cannot be swayed because you are without recourse for your very existence. None of us get to choose, it's a rule, like the ones you talked about not liking, and as such, it's basically unavoidable. I know the reasons for procreation in my case are very different than yours, but in the end, God or no God, does not every wife have a right to bear children of her husband, feel she has been fulfilled in that role if that is what she so chooses? She cannot ask the egg nor the sperm how they feel that day and if they are up to the challenge of a life here on this planet can she? Ultimately, we OWE our lives to our parents, and we cannot blame them for bringing us, unless it was ill conceived, but that is another matter entirely. The idea of someone having done away with you early on is a disturbing notion to me as that would mean I would not have had the opportunity to focus on this writing of yours and forget my problems for a while. We practically exist for each other, more than for our own selves. We all have problems, doesn't mean there are no solutions. In the end, if you want to be purely objective, of course, life would be much easier if: a. We got to choose b. There was no suffering c. There would be no repercussions for ending it But true suffering is loss, and what greater loss than a one human to another. Only one greater I can imagine, not having another coming to accompany you in this world. Yes, the end of sentient life would seem very clear and a simple way of doing things, with or without faith, but it would be a terrible suffering for those left to end it all, the last ones, and if one person's suffering is not just to ensure another’s, then by no means can your thought of ending all of us be fair. |
[ link ] |
15-09-2012
This is a selfish and self centered argument based upon the capricious notion that you simply cannot be swayed because you are without recourse for your very existence. Look, who gets to be selfish then if not me? God? God has the right to be selfish and create whoever he pleases and put them in the circumstances whatever he likes? I am not a toy and don't like to be treated like one. None of us get to choose, it's a rule, like the ones you talked about not liking, and as such, it's basically unavoidable. It's an avoidable and preventable harm. My children will not be playing by such rules because I find them cruel, stupid and pointless. And everyone else who has issues with such rules should simply do the same. It is avoidable. My brother avoided it. He was never created. And he never complained about it. does not every wife have a right to bear children of her husband, feel she has been fulfilled in that role if that is what she so chooses? The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another one begins. Why should anyone has a right to decide on behalf of someone else just because they need something? She cannot ask the egg nor the sperm how they feel that day and if they are up to the challenge of a life here on this planet can she? The absense of the possibility of consent doesn't mean the consent is granted. Fact remains, you still do not have a consent. And when you don'e and the risk of great harm is involved, you have to care first about not harming anyone. Ultimately, we OWE our lives to our parents, and we cannot blame them for bringing us, unless it was ill conceived No, my parents owe me my peacefull non-existence. I don't owe them anything. They wanted to have me - they had me. We practically exist for each other, more than for our own selves. This is just poetic talk that is supposed to sound nice. We just appear here and not 'for' anything, but 'because'. Because our parents had sex and decided to keep the baby. life would be much easier if: Sure, it would also be fare and what we call 'humane'. It's not. Only one greater I can imagine, not having another coming to accompany you in this world. I'm going to repeat myself from FB, it was just the same question the other day: In many catastrophe movies, I noticed, people who're suffering, struggling to survive, in one of them even going as far as eating the corpses to survive, there is a dialogue of a couple going somewhere along the lines of 'oh, i wish we had (more) babies'. WTF? So they could also end up like you, or worse? Yeah, you should have had more babies to keep you company in your misery! but it would be a terrible suffering for those left to end it all, the last ones, and if one person's suffering is not just to ensure another’s, then by no means can your thought of ending all of us be fair. You care for a limited number of people who will be the last to go, but you say it's ok to keep perpetuating life where people suffer routinely for centuries and millions of years? How so? I could throw your own arguments at you at this point and say we're going to mitigate those peoples suffering, we're cgoing to come up with devices and whatever to make their last days better. Are you claiming those last people will experience the kind of suffering that has never took place on this planet? And I mean, probably all unimaginable horrors had taken place here and will repeat themselves as life continues. Also, you seem to be living under the assumption that unless we stop reproducing we will never seize to exist. You heard of Heat death of the Universe? There are 2 scenarious if Im not mistaken but they both lead to one end: we all seize to exist. Life dies out. The hard way. Not the graceful way antinatalists are offering. |
|
15-09-2012 We'll I must say, it took me a little while to put all that together, and you responded in very short order with nearly a magnitude greater of content. I am impressed by your vocal and ample argument. I'd say I'd continue this further but alas life calls, but I will try to return to this though and pick it back up. It's a pleasure that have an intelligent conversation once in a while, and it doesn't hurt to laugh once in a while and frankly, "This is just poetic talk that is supposed to sound nice," caught me quite off guard. You're obviously not much of a romantic, especially if my argument about life and death includes a slightly inspiring remark which you manage to pick out crush very "sterilely" yet brutally.I hope you have a good weekend and thanks for the banter, I enjoy it immensely. |
[ link ] |
15-09-2012
Hey, that's normal that I respond so quickly. I've been pondering this question for a longer period of time, and I've been asking myself all those questions you're raising. Now I just have to type the answers away. If you're considering my arguments for the first time and you're genuinely intending to at least entertain them before dismissing, of course it's more time consuming for you. "This is just poetic talk that is supposed to sound nice," Don't take that as an offense though, I know all too well the things we say to ourselves to feel better, the motos our society promotes and that are tempting to adopt. I'm not a romantic perhaps, ... romance is ... i don't know, it's like a substitute for the real thing or something. I'm not sure how to explain it yet but it seems to me that to be brothers in tragic cynisim is much more real, and comforting and supporting and compassionate than desperately trying to conceal the crude realities of our existence and call that romanticism. I don't need to keep illusions of our value or purpose or altruism or glory or whatever to sympathize with our ordeal as sentient conscious beings. Thank you for playing fair and trying to address my arguments without distorting them. Such an approach is hard to find. Have a nice weekend too) |
|
22-09-2012 People are ignorant (and uneducated I guess). They see and hear only what they want to. Nowadays only the news channels and newspapers give us sad stories and depressing news and even then people still go "oh well..." as if things are gonna change by themselves.Whenever I try to discuss a serious issue with someone, they don't seem that interested or they just find a way to change the subject. Things don't change because people don't listen. A few weeks ago I started feeding the pigeons that live around the neighborhood. At first they were only 3 or 4. Now they're over 15. Luckily I live on the first floor so it's easy to throw them seeds on the ground in the garden ^^ ; it's just a nice feeling when I go to the window and they all gather in the tree, waiting. I took a picture too: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4536513980586&set=a.2887286270924.146602.1523211504 |
[ link ] |
24-09-2012
Thanks for the comment, Stefan! Whenever I try to discuss a serious issue with someone, they don't seem that interested or they just find a way to change the subject. Yeah, that's very common. It's not often you'll meet people who are interested in anything 'global'. In fact, you being interested in something not directly related to you will almost be classified as abnormal. Like, you must have had a childhood trauma if you're concerned with foolish things like meaning, ethics, suffering, justice, freedom. But you're allright if you're only bothered by the newest episode of a popular TV show and the contents of your fridge)) Careful with those pigeons though, they tend to breed like crazy under the right circumstances (and over-population of any species isn't pretty, i mean, just look at the humans!))) We have had lots of pigeons here, plenty of comfortable cellars in this area. I live on the last floor so when I don't close my balcony windows some might come in for a walk and leave a 'pigeon was here' sign on the floor. The poop, that is :))) Nice picture)) |
|
13-10-2012 Am very much in accord with what you write.Have had this line in mind for several years now, it's the opening voiceover to a film. Over a black background we hear a woman's voice: "Can you hear it? Can you? The world is crying out in pain. In suffering. I can't hear anything else. Can you hear it?" Also a quote: life is truly known only to those who suffer, lose, endure adversity, and stumble from defeat to defeat. - AnaГЇs Nin Peace to you Irina |
Comments to Pigeon of peace...dying in agony.