Jump to content

the.crooked

Premium Member
  • Posts

    4,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by the.crooked

  1. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth no worries on the paper, just finished it. 13 pages of complete and udder bullshit on the verification of unobservable entities within experimentation. back to morality. I guess this again comes down to our fundamental difference in perception of man. I dont see man as any different from animal except in our ability to reason. But, I do not think that differentiates us as the reason we are here or in so much as that ability to reason is just another sense organ. As to your question of what then is moral. I felt that we had already established that any distinction of what it is to be moral is arbitrary and subjective. However, I do not think that the establishment of morality is contained within religion. I think the distinctions that we create for morality, at their very base are just guidelines for survival within social settings. When I said self control as well as morality are only known via interaction, I mean that they are dialectic in nature. Control is only expressed over something. We have self control in so much as we have free will and can decide to do what we want, but self control as far as morality is only seen in so much as the decision (free will) to act according to those moral guidelines we have created. While I recognize that morality at this point is steeped within historical context, I feel one an extrapolate from that a general idea of Morality. Not so much the specific guidelines set down in each religion or whatever, but more to the concept of morals as a whole.
  2. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth morality and ethics as i see them, are the set of guidelines which determine social interaction, for morality has no meaning in a solitary sense. I only know that which is moral by virtue of my interaction with others. And your absolutely right in your assesment of all those things being animal in nature. But i also contend that morality is but an offshoot of those instincts. Everything we do, is in regards to continue to eat, to continue to sleep, to continue to fuck. Soo, anything that would further that exploit, e.g. morals, are not particularly above animal instinct even if they are a reflection of the rationality of man. I ask you what is self control? again, it is only in relation to other people. These are but guidelines intuited to assure a standard form of communication on a very very basic level. I'm not talking ten commandments. I mean i know in my head that if I attack you, you will retalliate. Thus as to prevent such an attack from you, I will not attack you, and expect on some instictive level that you will understand the same thing. This is what I meant when I say that morals and ethics are just intuited guidelines. And that they are intuited causes the subjectiveness from which we contemporarily discuss them. It fits with even your descriptive of their subjective nature (I refer you to your previous post of finding the concept of Criminality interesting). I think the reason you find this stuff fascinating is that perhaps you intuit there is something beyond the religious ascription your giving them. Morality if it is necessitated by religion, is pretty rediculous and arbitrary then. Anywho... back to my paper.
  3. tittays. umm no. im sorta with you symbols as far as the cynicism is concerned. While I mostly look to understand whats going on in the world as just a means to maneuver easily through it, i can't help but be upset at what is happening. Even though I dont agree with our friend here's plan to fight the system with the painting of explicit anti-administration/materialism/etc. messages, I do see the validity in personal change. Not so much in that it creates an outward efficacy about the events of the world, but that if I and others who are of a similar mindset are merely aware of these goings on, then by virtue of being aware of such things, I am combating those seemingly harmful ideologies. I suppose its more so a rationalization of apathy towards action while maintaining an ideological stance contentious to the current one.
  4. homeboy popped up on crossfire with a quickness.
  5. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth i still think you are missing what smart and I are saying. morals are a natural reaction to the animalistic need to acquire and retain resources. be it out of fear or some other modal predecessor, it is not that morality needs religion to maintain itself. it would seem to me to be quite the contrary. remove morals from religion and what do you have? also I dont think that the golden rule is specifically derived from that passage in the torah. I think if anything it shows it as a universally understood perception of humanity. That there are qualifying statements like that in most religions suggests that credit shouldnt be given to them, but unto humanity itself as the cause of morality.
  6. viacom, turner, newscorp, etc. there are like six of them
  7. sure as hell wont. DoD is one shady ass place as of late. Also, as towards the loose change statement. Watch both. There are two loose change films.
  8. yeah. and now his decision to allow full oversight? my ass. public pacification...
  9. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth smart and mar- as far as economic construals of morality are concerned I saw a very interesting presentation last year. It was having to do with game theory and altruism. Basically a friend of mine set up an experiment that allowed on person to decide how much money to give themselves and another person. They had the full ability to make it whatever split they want. But, If they gave themselves more, they were up for "review" If they gave themselves less than, they could immediately take the money. The review aspect was that for ever situation that was given where a person took more than, the decision was reviewed by another person, whom seeing only the decision to take more than decided whether to let it occur or to redistribute the wealth as they saw fit, among the initial two players and then themselves. All of this was blind of course. What he ended up finding was that more often then naught the choice was that altruism is rewarded and in fact is predicated by another altruistic act. That is to say those that chose to take more than, were punished in so much as the people reviewing either took all their wealth away and gave it to the other person, or took most of it for themselves. Where as those that took less than, their situations were also reviewed, but in almost every case, the third entrant into the equation would either subtract the difference from the higher value and put that to himself as to make it "even." Thus we find that altruism is rewarded and acts as a sort of causal base towards another act of altruism. So, what that says to me. Which is in slight contention with what Smart says, as this experiment is a derivation of the ones used in the economic studies he is discussing, is that it supports what I originally said about ethics as a means of protecting resources. While fear of not having those resources does necessitate the developement of ethics, it does not govern them.
  10. have any of you people even attempted to listen to what i posted?
  11. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth I meant to delete this and write: Thus we can again see that morality as a normative set of concepts can nnot be ascribed to religion. It seems to follow then that if religion is merely a means to dissiminate ethical standards, then religion follows morality, but the relationship is not transitive.
  12. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth I think that is a bit too much credit to give to religion as far as the derivation of morals. Ethics and morality as a concept have been concieved and discussed since Aristotle. Altruism is seen as one of the defining characteristics of humanity, but is seen in expressions among other animals. That animals, whom we can assume to know nothing of their thought processes, seem to express some of the same moral or ethical tendencies as us seems to imply that perhaps it must have a shared origin. As religion is known unto man and not animal, it follows that if religion is the origin of morals, then animals should not act as if they had them let alone concieved of them. So, if there is a connective tissue between the similarly ethical actions of both humans and animals, then it appears as if religion could not be the origin of such a moral drive. Religion uses the dogmas to put forth general philosophies on morality. Each religion has its own set of ethical codes by which their attendents are supposed to live. In so much as each religion also claims a sort of credibility over any other religion, it causes a contradiction as to which one's specific ethics are correct. Thus we can see that morality as a standard concept can not be ascribed to religion, but merely as a means to put forth a concept of morality. I have yet to take an ethics or aesthetics class, but I think I will find them to be amazing. Neitzche pretty much wrecked shit when it comes to ethics and morality. Even people such as Spinoza developed their entire metaphysical philosophies as to derive some sort of standard moral procedure for mankind. As his interpretation of the universe and god stood as being one and the same. He expressed the first attempt within philosophy to reconcile diesm from a rational base. What he ended up finding is that if the unfolding of the universe throughout time reflects that which is the infinite essence of God, than the exact actions that we take are the correct ones. This is easy to confuse with determinism and could essentially be said that its a matter of title and not actual ideological difference. Yet, Spinoza felt that within human free will lied the answer to determinism and the key to the morality from which we should conduct ourselves. Not in so much as to follow impulse, but that the expression of ones free will expressed the subjective and standard morality of humanity while at the same time playing out the entirety of that which is God. Pretty crazy shit. I think its all pretty awesome. In my humble opinion, I think morality is more so an extended version of survivalistic instinct as animals. In so much as our rational capacity is quite larger than most animals, I think we have developed and recognized these "rules" for living so that we may find a common ground amongst ourselves. This sort of goes along with many of the states of nature proposed by enlightenment political thinkers. For if man is by virtue of nature solitary, then it follows there is no non arbitrary set of standard ethics that could be transfered through out. But, in so much as we have the rationality and compulsion to do otherwise, we do so as to create a sense of community to increase our chance of survival as an animal competing for resources. Take the many considerations of why people would join into a social contract together. Locke felt it was to protect property. If this intuitive greed is in fact the impetus behind such social interactions than it makes perfect sense that we would also intuit some sort of method by which to make those social interactions happen. Thus we have the formation of ethics. A set of intuited codes, which vary by some degree or another(thus their subjective nature), by which to allow for an interaction that is created to protect and enable the resources by which we shall procreate. This is also related to my belief that racism, classicism and any other sort of divisive prejiduce will exist so long as we act upon that instinctive urge to acquire and protect resources. i.e. social interaction guided by intuited subjective morality. the real question at hand is why i just spent fifteen minutes typing this rather than writing a paper thats due tomorrow on the role and implication of the realist/anti-realist argument in philosophy of science on theory confirmation about unobservable entities?... i am not gonna get to sleep tonight.
  13. yeah man, fox news is an amazing thing. two semesters ago Noam Chomsky spoke at my school on the issue of manufacturing consent for the war, the reason for it, and the implications of it. It was really interesting. I was high as shit. Most people couldn't follow his monotonous speaking patterns, but it was just fine for my stoned ass. Needless to say, he spoke a lot about the patterns and means in which news is let out to the american public. Dawood- yeah man, shrooms will do that shit. Not to continue the drug talk, but those revelations within trips have never left me. It always takes me a couple weeks of retrospection after a trip to extrapolate what the actual revelation was. Crazies on the street however, I think, seem to be stuck in those more existential patterns of thinking and such their reality is contained within that, comparative to the shared reality that we all hold through shared forms of rationality. enough of a digression... missles. building. bang. lie. war. impeach.
  14. freestyle freestyle with lil flip and paul wall. cham has second verse. trendsetter flow ive got more if anyone ends up wanting it.
  15. Chamilionaire is a lot better than most you people have prolly heard. Listen to a bunch of the older freestyles of you can get your hands on em. Get ya mind correct was a great indie release by him and paul wall. In fact, I'll link up a couple good cham verses.
  16. ehh, i feel like it happens with specific things. Plus when I can't find things in the related links, i get a lil concerned. For the abc news one, there were 267 related articles for the nsa wiretaps, but that one was not in them. Whereas another topic had a related link count over a hundred times larger. So, to me it would suggest that at the least, even if the source has been shuffled as they tend to do, that the article would still be categorized within the list of related links. However, it often happens that this is not the case. Perhaps im gettin a lil paranoid, but im glad that someone else has seen this same sorta shit happen. fightin the shadows...
  17. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth that was always the first question when people found out i am athiest... them:"so you dont have morals?" me: "more than you...dick"
  18. coffee- I leave it unpersonalized. I think doing so leaves a view much more reflective of what most people will see. casek- yeah man, that shit freaks me out. I feel like im watching the duping of a lot of people as its happening. It's pretty scary to me. There was a kid at my school this last semester who went a bit insane, too much news and too much delouse. The really sad thing was when he was having his episode, the seemingly neurotic shit he was saying was really just the truth, but because of how he was saying it, sounded insane. Made me think about how many people you hear blathering on the streets about conspiracies, how many of them are real. Delta project...
  19. thanks coffee, but i have the article in my browsers history. I was more concerned with the way google allows headlines to sit and to what side the way they present stories and links might lean.
  20. i think some of those other angles were in that presentation i mentioned. I was never able to pin down a copy of the presentation and it has since dissappeared. Every link that I had to it was taken down within a couple weeks after it floated around. The fact that information has been dissappearing on the internet is very disheartening to me. I need to start a thread on the headline patterns of Google news. For two years now I have been reading google news almost every couple hours, (as my life permits, because im not a wacked out nutto who does nothing but this) and i have seen some crazy shit happen in terms of the running times and actual links to different articles. Time and time again Ill see an article with some rather stirring implications that will out of no where be gone, and in its place an article of the opposite opinion is placed using the same thumbnail and similar headling wording. Yesterday I read an article I was linked to by google news, about abc news making claims that the government is sifting through their phone records to find the upper government leaks. The page refreshed itself, as it is scripted to, and in the place of that link, was a simlarly titled article but was pro NSA wiretapping. I searched through six pages of related stories to the NSA phonetapping and could not find the original article from which I had been linked. Same shit happened with the recent environmental reports that have been coming out. All in all i think some fucked up shit is going on, but im not gonna say that on the phone though.
  21. Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth what a dick.
  22. There are tons of viable theories as to what the government could have done with plane loads of people. Government sponsered acts to start wars are no new thing. We tend to believe that we are above that, but is an administration whose policy is lying and killing above that? I think not. Even if they did not have a direct hand in the events of that day, I am convinced that they allowed it to happen and supplemented certain aspects of what was to happen. There is way way too much coming out in the last year about that day that does suggests some sort of involvement, be it direct or otherwise, by the officials within our government. There is a kid at my school whose free time is dedicated to the 9/11 truth movement. These people are not hackneyed conspiracy theorists, they are regular people who use the means available (freedom of information act), to gain as much information about that day as possible. When you find out such things as a relative of bush being head of security for two years with the contract ending a week before the date of the attack, one starts to get a lil concerned as to possible connections. All im trying to say is that it is as bad to simply dismiss the possibility of the current administration being involved in the events of 9/11, than to flip the opposite way and blanketly believe that they did everything. That is what is scary, is that fairly reasonable people are starting to find stuff that does implicate them in some fashion or another.
×
×
  • Create New...