Living with Jesus in the moment?😋
What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)
Sort:
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3383
pawnwhacker wrote:
Trysts, you make some valid claims (well, I am mostly just being polite ). But let me first emphasize that what I have said is not so much in regard to the ethics side of philosophy but the metaphysics, cosmology, ontology, teleology and epistemology. Shoot, I think I just eviscerated the bulk of the subject. Science has rendered these matters of armchair omphaloskepsis as impotent, pointless, stupid, worthless...did I mention dead?
If you can't or won't agree with me on this...fine. I don't care. Tough patooties.
Now when we get to ethics in philosophy, we have...well, here for example:
"Philosophers have three main approaches to the field of ethics: deontology, teleology (more commonly referred to as consequentialism) and virtue ethics. These three approaches differ in terms of the object of study.
Deontologists focus on actions themselves and try to determine if they are inherently right or wrong. For example a deontologist might say that the act of lying is always wrong, regardless of the reason.
Consequentialists look to the final consequence of the action, not the action itself. The measure of the consequence is taken by the increase in pleasure and decrease in pain caused by the action for those involved. With the consequentialist approach, lying to damage someone would be wrong but lying to protect someone would be right.
Finally, virtue ethicists look at the individual actor when determining the moral standing of an action. According to virtue ethics, an action is correct if it nourishes virtue within the individual. Common virtues include honesty, which is contrary to lying."
re: http://www.ehow.com/info_8272871_ethics-philosophy.html?ref=Track2&utm_source=ask
So, what do I think about this part of philosophy (not that anyone who disagrees with me really gives a...gives a, well how about "hoot"?
What is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is evil, how should a society conduct itself, is nose picking moral and blah...blah...blah...
We still have religion (like it or not) which is a prime influence...the Ten Commandments or Sharia Law, for example. Political parties...lefties, righties, liberal, conservative, moderate, Nazis, communists and so on and so forth. On top of that, there is the "law of the land".
You can sit around all day on a barstool sipping Singapore Slings (or guzzling them) and proffering profound philosphical ethical and moral viewpoints and biased, subjective opinions, all the while wearing a powdered wig and crooking your teensy-weensy pinky finger at just the exactly correct (and most popular) angle...but you go out on the street and break a law or, in many countries, break a religious fiat and, well, try it. You'll see firsthand what I mean.
Only fools such as hapless (who has fled the scene in defeat and despair) are so naiive as to think ethical philosophy is worth a farthing.
Grow up, people.
Bah!
Amusing.
Of course I can't, and therefore won't agree with you about science having replaced philosophical inquirey. And I understand your "I don't care" position being dogmatic, and not up for discussions which may enlighten or persuade you otherwise. But maybe it is still good to point out (for an imaginary reader in my head maybe?) that we live in a society of moral problems, and science has been used to exacerbate these problems. We certainly don't live in a world where the scientist escapes being an immoral Being. What use is science if it's used immorally?
Moral and ethical philosophy is imperative today more than ever because science has been used to create weapons which destroy societies instantly. Science has also been used to create instant global communication allowing us to find the truth of a matter among all the political manipulations and lies.
Philosophy has always been a seeking of the truth. It is philosophical inquirey that gives birth to scientific investigation. Science is just a tool for philosophy, not a replacement:)
MW: Others might think that your redlined critiques are tedious, but I don't. Yet, I seem to have gotten color blind in my old age. Red seems to be one of those colors that appear invisible to me. So, I have no idea what you are yammering about. Have you tried a laxative?
_Number_6: "A pimple-faced noob? Hardly. I think anyone who uses the phrase "a well rounded gentleman" is experienced enough to know what a Churchill is and was alive when its namesake was."
Ah, Churchill, a great man indeed. We will not surrender! Blood, sweat and tears! You know, I thought it was a great shame when President Obama sent Sir Churchill's bust "packing".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html
I have been to the place of Chrurchill's birth, Blenheim Palace. Splendid! I've also been to Buckingham Palace. If they were both up for sale, I would buy Blenheim. Not only do I prefer it but it has a nice, rustic setting...away from the hoi polloi of big city life.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy smoking Churchill cigars...they are 7-inches in length. I have a mazo of them in my humidor at this very moment.
Oh, there are those who despise Churchill (did I mention Obama?). But he was one of the greatest war time leaders of all time. And yes, I remember him when he was alive. I was already an adult. He died January 1965 (one month later, I met my wife and we are still happily married).
About philosophy, I know it may seem harsh to some...what I've said about philosophy. I did enjoy studying it. I even received a grade of A++ (5.0) in it. But I enjoy it for reasons that are similar to why I enjoy art, fictional novels and music. As I said, it helps to sculpt a well-rounded gentleman.
For example, who is not touched by the story of Socrates and how he was forced to drink hemlock? If I didn't know of this, I would be a lesser human being (I suppose).
"The trial and execution of Socrates took place in 399 BC.Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth andimpiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates' accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities". Socrates' death was result of his asking philosophical questions. A majority of thedikasts (Athenian citizens chosen by lot to serve as jurors) voted to convict him. Consistent with common practice, the dikasts determined Socrates’ punishment with another vote. Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid."
re: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
Also, there is this grand photo of a truly great man:
# 3509. I think this is an example of our thought limitation to perceive the event that we haven't experienced.For us that having atomic theory knowledge suggest Aristotle to take general view regarding matter.This generalized view will lead him to overcome the deceiving weight by which to treat weight as a matter quantity.Up to this point,our philosophy method suggest to treat the object parts equally toward earth attraction.Finally we got the right answer.
He took the wrong generalization.It is difficult to avoid deceiving common sense.
It also shows the limitation of philosophy.The philosophy needs experience to enrich its extent.Analogous to the older man should be proficient in it rather than the younger.
What has science achieved?
"Plenty. If you think science doesn't matter much to you, think again. Science affects us all, every day of the year, from the moment we wake up, all day long, and through the night. Your digital alarm clock, the weather report, the asphalt you drive on, the bus you ride in, your decision to eat a baked potato instead of fries, your cell phone, the antibiotics that treat your sore throat, the clean water that comes from your faucet, and the light that you turn off at the end of the day have all been brought to you courtesy of science. The modern world would not be modern at all without the understandings andtechnology enabled by science."
re: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whathassciencedone_01
What has philosophy achieved? Answer: blah...blah...blah...
re: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=365
I rest my case.
Yeah, but Jesus accomplished a whole lot more.😀
What has religion achieved?
Here are a few things:
The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans ("They're devil-worshippers!"), the Romans demonizing Christians ("They're atheists and cannibals!").
Vilification of homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide.
People and animals sacrificed as an offering to gods.
Food destroyed because it doesn't comply with specific religious beliefs.
Women treated like second class citizens, or even slaves, based on religious teachings.
Children growing up without music.
Children growing up to hate and fear science and scientists, because science disproves their parents' religion - leading to appalling scientific illiteracy.
Tens of thousands tortured and killed as witches (a practice which still continues today).
Millions of cats killed in the belief that witches use them as familiars, leaving rats free to spread the black death throughout Europe, killing millions of people in turn.
People bothered and sometimes woken up by door-to-door religion salespeople.
People dying because they believe their faith makes them immune to snake venom, or other lethal aspects of reality.
People dying - and letting their children die - because their religion forbids accepting medical help.
People choked, starved, poisoned, or beaten to death during exorcisms.
Female genital mutilation endorsed by religious texts, mutilation that results in infection, sterility and death.
Psychological and physiological conditions blamed on demons, preventing believers from seeking medical care.
People disowning family members for leaving their religion, in some cases symbolized by mock funerals.
Friendships and romances severed or never started over religious differences.
"Abstinence-only" sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies - often leading to ill-fated "emergency" marriages.
Campaigns against safe sex, with similar results - responsible for much of the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Religiously-prompted fear of polio vaccine, which halted the global eradication effort and brought polio back to many countries.
Women having septic abortions -- or being forced to have unwanted children they resent -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.
Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.
The discouragement of rational, critical thought.
Believers whipping, impaling, poisoning or crucifying themselves during religious festivals as a demonstration of their faith and piety.
Children spending the period of their lives when the brain is most receptive to learning new information reading, rereading, and even memorizing religious texts.
People who believe the world is about to end neglect their education, are not financially responsible, and in extreme cases take part in mass suicides.
Environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that God will magically fix everything.
Wives told they will be tortured forever if they leave their abusive husbands.
People in times of trouble relying on advice from religious leaders without any sort of training in counseling or therapy.
Holy wars - followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.
The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.
Persecution/punishment of blasphemers (Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence on him), and blasphemy laws in general.
Slavery condoned by religous texts.
Children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they'll be too frightened to even question religion.
Terminal patients in constant agony who would end their lives if they didn't believe it would result in eternal torture.
School boards having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools.
Persecution of Heretics/scientists, like Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) and Galileo Galilei.
Blue laws forcing other businesses to stay closed so churches can generate more revenue.
Your need to pay more personal income taxes because religious organizations are exempt.
Mayors, senators, and presidents voted into office not because they're right for the job, but because of their religious beliefs.
Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children) - but hey, atheists are the immoral ones.
People accepting visual and auditory hallucinations unquestioningly as divine, sometimes with fatal results.
Suicide bombers, who are certain they will be rewarded in heaven.
Discrimination against atheists, such as laws stating they may not hold public office or testify in court.
Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions and cultures.
Hardship compounded by the guilt required to reconcile the idea of a fair god with reality ("why is God punishing me? What have I done wrong? Don't I have enough faith?").
Human achievements - from skillful surgery to to emergency landings - attributed to gods instead of to the people actually responsible.
Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer their suffering as a gift to her god.
Suppression of logical and critical thought.
Billions spent to build, maintain, and staff houses of worship.
Grief and horror caused by the belief that dead friends and family members are tortured as punishment for disbelief.
Opposition to scientific (especially medical) progress on religious grounds.
Whole societies divided by minor differences in belief or doctrine, often resulting in violence.
Natural disasters and other tragedies used to claim God is displeased and present demands to avoid similar events (it's like terrorism, but without having to plan or do anything).
The unchecked use of fear and maintenance of ignorance to keep the population "faithful".
The attempted genocide of followers of a particular faith (e.g. the Jewish Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia).
Vilification of this current life as base and sinful when in fact it is fragile and precious.
Removal of responsibility for the planet and for the future because of apocalyptic beliefs that some divine being will either destroy it all or fix it all.
re: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090627190717AABeLXD
I rest my case.
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3390
(#3517) Philosophy has always been a seeking of the truth. It is philosophical inquirey that gives birth to scientific investigation. Science is just a tool for philosophy, not a replacement:)
****
Trysts is so right here.....science follows philosophy a'O.....like reason follows the heart.
Okay, remember when that philosophical egg fell off the merlon ?....and the all the King's horses all the King's men thing ?....
You see, science has been trying to put him back together ever since....
....
Humpty was very-very bright....just hellaclumsy. And don't believe for a second someone pushed him off. He was untouchable 'cuz he made the King laff all the time. If not, the King would've eaten him for breakfast way b4 that.
(....and I still think Humpty came b4 his mom....but then that's getting back onto topic, and we don't wanna do that, do we ?)
MindWalk wrote:
BartolomeusRex wrote: MindWalk replies in red:
Empirism was great at revealing mistakes of rationalism, but it made as many mistakes as the latter. Kant put an end to both of them. Tell that to John Stuart Mill. (I would count Sir Karl Popper as an empiricist, too.)
I was talking about British empiricism in the 18. century which I guess pawnwhacker was refering to. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3392
I hate isms.
It is necessary to be rational and empirical. The ancient Greeks were impressively strong in the former for their time and oddly weak (with hindsight) in the latter.
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3393
pawnwhacker wrote:
What has religion achieved?
re: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090627190717AABeLXD
I rest my case.
yahoo answers ...yay!!
twaddle
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3395
MindWalk wrote:
pawnwhacker wrote: MindWalk replies in blue:
_Number_6: "Ironic since it seems you are arguing against philosophy from a purely philosophical perspective."
Eh, you may have a point there...but only ostensibly. I am a freethinker with an analytical mind, a decent education and a great many decades of experience. What? You think I'm a pimple-faced noob?
Trysts, you make some valid claims (well, I am mostly just being polite ). But let me first emphasize that what I have said is not so much in regard to the ethics side of philosophy but the metaphysics, cosmology, ontology, teleology and epistemology. Ah, so I wasn't wrong to think that you had only part of philosophy in mind. But you seem to have a larger portion of it in mind than I thought. Shoot, I think I just eviscerated the bulk of the subject. Science has rendered these matters of armchair omphaloskepsis as impotent, pointless, stupid, worthless...did I mention dead? So, I wasn't wrong to use the word "worthless." But do you really think of epistemology as "dead"?
If you can't or won't agree with me on this...fine. I don't care. Tough patooties.
Now when we get to ethics in philosophy, we have...well, here for example:
"Philosophers have three main approaches to the field of ethics: deontology, teleology (more commonly referred to as consequentialism) and virtue ethics. These three approaches differ in terms of the object of study.
Deontologists focus on actions themselves and try to determine if they are inherently right or wrong. For example a deontologist might say that the act of lying is always wrong, regardless of the reason.
Consequentialists look to the final consequence of the action, not the action itself. The measure of the consequence is taken by the increase in pleasure and decrease in pain caused by the action for those involved. With the consequentialist approach, lying to damage someone would be wrong but lying to protect someone would be right.
Finally, virtue ethicists look at the individual actor when determining the moral standing of an action. According to virtue ethics, an action is correct if it nourishes virtue within the individual. Common virtues include honesty, which is contrary to lying."
re: http://www.ehow.com/info_8272871_ethics-philosophy.html?ref=Track2&utm_source=ask
So, what do I think about this part of philosophy (not that anyone who disagrees with me really gives a...gives a, well how about "hoot"? I think that that was a rather quick overview. I also think that the question of what sorts of entities should be treated as having what sorts of rights, and for what reasons, is very interesting. Historically--and in religion--we have collections of moral rules. But ethicists try to rationally systematize ethics and to ground it in fundamental principles. I think that's useful.
What is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is evil, how should a society conduct itself, is nose picking moral and blah...blah...blah... You don't think that rationally systematizing such matters is better than leaving them to the dictates of the gods?
We still have religion (like it or not) which is a prime influence...the Ten Commandments or Sharia Law, for example. Political parties...lefties, righties, liberal, conservative, moderate, Nazis, communists and so on and so forth. On top of that, there is the "law of the land".
You can sit around all day on a barstool sipping Singapore Slings (or guzzling them) and proffering profound philosphical ethical and moral viewpoints and biased, subjective opinions, all the while wearing a powdered wig and crooking your teensy-weensy pinky finger at just the exactly correct (and most popular) angle...but you go out on the street and break a law or, in many countries, break a religious fiat and, well, try it. You'll see firsthand what I mean.
Only fools such as hapless (who has fled the scene in defeat and despair) are so naiive as to think ethical philosophy is worth a farthing. I guess I'm a fool, then.
Grow up, people.
Bah!
There you go, pawnwhacker. If I use red in a post and you can't see it, remind me that in this thread there's someone who can't see red print, and I'll change it to blue or to green or to orange or to purple--to some color you can see.
Mar 6, 2015
0
#3396
pawnwhacker wrote:
Ah, Churchill, a great man indeed. We will not surrender! Blood, sweat and tears! You know, I thought it was a great shame when President Obama sent Sir Churchill's bust "packing".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html
For the truth about the Churchill busts (yes, plural), see here: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/the-great-bust-incident-part-ii/ One was on loan to President Bush and was returned at the end of his presidency because, you know, it was on loan to President *Bush*. The other is still in the White House.
apologist
thats cool...