March 8, 2018 at 8:09 pm #1609309
Lol gas had a good chuckle over thatMarch 8, 2018 at 11:32 pm #1609350
Lol mac, only just twigged you are quoting hannibal lecter 🙂
Was curious when you mentioned aurelius though,recognised the name. Just watched a short lecture on who he was and while was familiar with stoicism I never heard his story so thanks for the pointer.
What a remarkable man, one thing that the lecturer said was while the general rule is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, aurelius was an exception.
Very religous man imo, dont necesarily have to believe in a creator to be religous, his heaven was to be at peace with his conscience, and he got there by following objective laws of rationality that are absolute in his eyes, as absolute as if created by a god. I wish some of history’s greatest minds could visit the present and understand what has been learned since they lived. How would the theory of evolution for example change aurelius’ perception of objective virtues I wonder?March 9, 2018 at 5:21 am #1609354
1] Not long ago you presented a strong argument that God as creator of the universe is an acceptable theory. Now you are arguing an accidental universe. That you chose to respond to mufc’s ridiculous question prompted me to respond with the God argument … hence the Koranic quote.
PLUS I suspect mufc was lighting touchpaper hoping the infidels would blow themselves up. I attempted to include him in the collateral damage.
2] The concept of Essentialism traces back to Plato and has some weight in my view, basically what a thing is, depends on its nature, its characteristics, its purpose. If you use a packing crate as a table is it a packing crate or a table?
3] I am attempting to construct a plausible case on the fly (gaslighting) which may not hold up well to scrutiny but if presented well could pass muster.
4] The italics should be clue its a quote. Clarice gives the game away. Hannibal was telling Clarice to look at the inner nature of the killer, his purpose, his essence!
5] The ancients don’t handle the concept of change well, for them the nature of the universe and man is fixed. Aurelius may argue man is still by nature an ape, a naked ape. That could even be the title of his best selling book 🙂
This may be the time for me to rest my case pending discovery of the flat truth about Kelly Brook’s tits !!!March 9, 2018 at 7:50 am #1609399
Mac, in prev debate I was arguing that religion and religous thinking has utility and argued no man should insult another because of the others beliefs. Considering you opposed me on all counts I am happy to see you give weight and utility to such religous thinking yourself. The forms and ideals are religous concepts plato believed existed outside our realm objectively. A table is designed, modern understanding is man evolved and in that paradigm can not have an ideal form as there is no objective measure for it.
I wasnt arguing earlier for accidental universe, its just that beliefs effect perspective too and if this is unintended universe then words like purpose and intrinsic nature are useless as there is no purpose to anything, just actions and reactions. I am openly religous in that i believe there are objective ideals and we should strive towards the ideals we can establish to the best of our ability collectively and individually.March 9, 2018 at 8:28 am #1609413
@luckydestiny – Just to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding, I DID NOT nor would ever condone insulting somebody for their religous beliefs (or anything) BUT I don’t see poking fun (eg like comedians do) as insults. I agree it can be a fine line between insult and joke, but normally the intent is clear.
AND … I am totally opposed to somebody claiming to be hurt, to be insulted, as a means to silencing humour or viewpoints.
AND …. if somebody chooses to bring their religion into a topic then they should be prepared to be challenged for what they themselves have introduced. This seems reasonable to me, if something is off limits, then don’t bring it into the arena.
There is a purpose to everything, if only the application we ourselves give it. And everything has properties, characteristics, purposes that can be used to define what it is. If something is used for a certain purpose it can be argued it becomes de facto what it is used for.
If I use the packing crate as a table, we can call it by the purpose it was made for OR what it is used for. If you live with a woman as man and wife, she becomes under law your wife albeit you never married. Perhaps I have not explained myself well, but you get the concept I think.
PS – The Earth sure as hell looks flat on my map 🙂March 9, 2018 at 8:45 am #1609419
Mac – What I find interesting is that the religeous can be offended by somone saying there is no god, but people with a strong belief in science, evolution and the lack of a god are not allowed to be offended by people stating there is a god.March 9, 2018 at 8:45 am #1609420
The specific incident that prompted my post that started last debate was my belief that calling someone weak because they adopt religous beliefs you believe are invalid is deliberate insult and not virtuous or wise. Each person is just as they were molded by existence and therefore even if they are objectively weak to mock them for it is sinister imo, and to try to take away a source of strength by mocking their religion is a kin to kicking a crutch away from a cripple for them being to weak to stand on their own two feet (if you believe only the weak need religion at least)
I have to make a distinction between application and purpose, something can be purposefully designed by humans to have a certain application, and because of the (possibly temporary) apparent order of the universe these things can be optimised to match the conditions of reality and have objective forms in that sense. To apply the same to humans and living creatures, planets and stars is folly imo IF you believe the universe is blindly evolving. The earth has utility to home living creatures, I would only describe that as the earths true nature or purpose if it were intended, that is obviously why so many philosophers believed in god/ gods.March 9, 2018 at 8:48 am #1609422
Pax, very few relgious people would be insulted if you tell them you dont believe in god, I think thats an imaginary argument.I would not accept a theist insulting an atheist for being a denier of god and I would not accept an atheist insulting a theist for believing in a god. Its just about respect really.March 9, 2018 at 9:15 am #1609441
One of the things I miss most about living in England is chats with the Jehova Witnesses on the doorstep. Absolute barmpots but always great value for a natter.March 9, 2018 at 9:22 am #1609445
Lucky – That maybe true about the moderate religeous community but the real staunchly religeous still find it an isult to their beliefs. They believe religion will save the human race, where as I believe science will give us all the answers to the earth and the universe.March 9, 2018 at 9:39 am #1609455
@Wonderfuel – I used to adopt a tip given to me by my father for Jehova Witnesses ….
Hello, good you’re here, you guys do wonderful work. Perhaps you can help me out? I’ve been trying for years to explain it to Mr.Wonderfuel over at number 27. Can you have a go, and don’t let him fob you off like he always does to me.March 9, 2018 at 9:42 am #1609457
Science will only take us so far Paxman. It isn’t moving quick enough to catch up, it cannot keep pace. The truth is many many steps ahead of even the greatest of our own minds and technologies. There are revelations far more shattering than the time the Greeks worked out the earth wasn’t flat but we haven’t come close to brushing them yet.March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am #1609468
WG – Science is moving at the fastest pace it ever has, saying it can’t keep pace just doesn’t add up, the answers are stationary and we are moving towards them all the time, I am not saying science will give us all the answers in our lifetime, but it is the only subject that has the tools to give us answers.March 9, 2018 at 10:12 am #1609490
That’s what you think…March 9, 2018 at 10:12 am #1609491
“I believe science will give us all the answers to the earth and universe” spoken like a true religious fanatic 🙂
I have not met the religious people you refer to pax, I think we have shared vastly different life experiences, can be only possible explanation.March 9, 2018 at 12:46 pm #1609587
Science has already pretty much put us in the ballpark of which direction answers will lie. Yes, we don’t know it all but we know the cure for cancer will be scientific and not shaking a bag of bones at the patient. We know about matter, physics and the building blocks of life.
The problem is, as we find answers we ask ourselves more advanced questions but those questions are more distant from everyday life.
Wonderfuels scepticism comes from his inabilty to find the winner of the 3.30 from Wikipedia. And for that his best hope is to get on his knees and pray for divine inspiration.March 9, 2018 at 1:28 pm #1609617
Mac, any one who doubts the importance of science to the progress of mankind and well being of humans is obviously ignorant to the benefits it has brought, but they are few and far between in industrialised nations.
However the law of diminishing returns also applies to scientific progress does it not?
Every new record set is closer and closer to the old record as we reach the limits of our capacity. Imo same applies with our ability to understand the universe and apply scientific principles, there will be a limit to our ability to comprehend and therefore any one who says science will lead us to all the answers regarding the universe is making a very religious and rationally unfounded claim imo.March 9, 2018 at 2:04 pm #1609646
Hmmm. I agree that we are not making the Eureka apple on the head discoveries but that is because with so many scientists in the world – and all sharing info – its more a case of inching towards solutions than a single major stride.
I see it like a virus or pyramid scheme, knowledge grows almost exponentially as the body of science expands through universities, companies, foundations etc.
There will be some physical limits, such as speed of light and space travel, but as we collect more datapoints it will be possible to extrapolate with a high(er) degree of accuracy and probability of truth.
The day will come where we know pretty much everything about our planet and lifeforms. There will be a limit on what there is to know within this parameter. The history and why’s is another thing.
But as I indicated, I think we develop a sense for probable answers, which perhaps cannot be proven but are in the ballpark in terms of being right.
The negatives of science and knowledge are the impact on our “humanity”. Would we welcome a world where man programs the computer and the computer churns out the poetry? Do you want to know the truth about Kelly. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. But on the other hand ……..
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.March 9, 2018 at 3:34 pm #1609705
Mac, wouldn’t an increase in number of scientists and scientific collaborations lead to an increase in discoveries and leaps forward if the law of diminishing returns did not apply? inching towards truth in an virtually infinite ever expanding universe doesn’t sound promising to me. (if ultimate knowledge of the universe is the desired/expected end goal)
Agree I believe we have capacity to thoroughly understand this planet though.March 9, 2018 at 4:09 pm #1609711
I don’t think diminishing returns applies to science, in fact the opposite. Its more like teamwork where the total is more than the sum of its parts. This is because scientists are not working independantly, they share information and thereby know sooner the right and wrong steps, directions etc.
10 men searching for an object in the woods, all with phones. All start searching different sectors but as clues are found in some sectors and other sectors ruled out, they all move to the sectors where the object is likely to be. Perhaps bad analagy, but hope you get it. Its coordinated.
As for inching as opposed to leaps. Perhaps I explained badly again. 20 men step forward an inch, 1 man steps forward a foot. The 20 cover more ground. In bygone days, it was one man (or team) buried in a lab or sitting under an apple tree, making discoveries. Today it is 2 million men, all reporting after every development, all learning from each other. Back to the woods example.
Yes in an expanding universe we cannot get to that planet on the edge. Our planet is finite, we can pretty much learn everything here. As we slowly move to other planets, we build up datapoints and can see trends, directions, probabilities etc. This then enables us to have high degree of certainty about the planets being formed on the outer edge.
And we develop enhanced thinking processes, skillsets, tools that help make the unknown known. Its perhaps like detectives, based on past experience and modern methods they can get close to identifying the unknown, even uncatchable, criminal. Never 100% but bloody close.
You must be logged in to reply this topic.