Kraftster wrote:I should clarify that he is referring to Materialism and not consumerism (often called materialism).
Kraftster wrote:And a quote to possibly generate some discussion:The good life is the happy life. The question is not men good (as Plato thought) but how to make them happy. All things other than happiness are sought with some other end in view, happiness alone is sought for its own sake.
largegarlic wrote:Kraftster wrote:I should clarify that he is referring to Materialism and not consumerism (often called materialism).
I wonder if materialism is really the right word anymore. As discussed in that Wikipedia article you linked to, our understanding of the basic particles in physics and the presumed existence of things like dark matter has gotten so strange that it almost seems weird to talk about things being made of matter. It does seem to make more sense to talk about naturalism or physicalism.
While I think I am a naturalist of a certain sort, I still do wonder about things like the problem of qualia, i.e. is it really possible to explain our subjective experience of things in completely physical terms? We can understand how light waves hit the eye and are processed by the brain to produce the experience of seeing red, but what about that additional reflective awareness that it is 'I' who am seeing red? I don't know much about the current research in this area, but this always has struck me as a lingering issue.
largegarlic wrote:Kraftster wrote:And a quote to possibly generate some discussion:The good life is the happy life. The question is not men good (as Plato thought) but how to make them happy. All things other than happiness are sought with some other end in view, happiness alone is sought for its own sake.
It's hard to argue with Aristotle on this point. Of course, as Aristotle knew, the difficulty lies in saying what exactly happiness is.
largegarlic wrote:And finally to bring an end to my procrastinating on LGP, I thought I would throw a quote from Nietzsche that's been stuck in my head the past couple months. From Nietzsche Contra Wagner: "Those Greeks were superficial--out of profundity."
. . . [A]nd now I will disclose, to those few who haven't already guessed, the essence of deconstructionism. It is a way of making money for academics who haven't a clue as to how to do anything meritorious. In other words, its blowing smoke, and what they have been smoking is anybody's guess.
Oversimplified? Not at all. Certainly deconstructionists can whine that the inability of the average person to understand proves only the reader's shortcomings, not those of the system; noting, e.g., that quantum thoery is also beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals, yet is accepted by both laity and experts. The difference between deconstructionism and (say) ordinary theories of physics is profound -- namely, that the latter are testable and the former is not; the latter admit no significant differences of opinion on what is predicted, whereas the former rarely finds an agreement.
It's true that some of the deconstructionists have made some trenchant comments, e.g., on the works of Husserl and Heidegger. But those were soft targets. They were confused and confusing, and no very sharp wit is needed to burst their bubbles.
In short, the deconstructionists have demonstrated only one thing, viz., that words and sentences are sometimes obscure or misleading. This is not exactly new, or even approximately new, nor has their approach helped solve the problem. Instead, it has created a problem -- how to protect the young and innocent against these parasites.
"The contemporary climate is therapeutic not religious. People today hunger not for personal salvation, let alone for the restoration of an earlier golden age, but for the feeling, the momentary illusion, of personal well-being, health, and psychic security." -- Christopher Lasch, "The Culture of Narcissism", pg. 7
LeopardLetang wrote:way behind the thread but..Kraftster wrote:Okay, gotta keep this thing alive. This is sort of a game theory exercise, but it has some philosophical implications.
You've been kidnapped by a creature that claims to have the power of foresight. The creature wants to play a game with you. He shows you two containers. One is translucent and has a beautiful gold vase inside, which the creature explains is worth about $1,000 (Container 1). You cannot see through the other box, but the creature explains that there are two possibilities for what is inside (Container 2). One possibility is that there is a spider in Container 2, which is worth nothing. The second possibility is the original Mona Lisa is inside Container 2, which is worth $50,000,000.
The creature gives you the opportunity to pick (a) just Container 1, (b) just Container 2, or (c) both of the containers. Before making your pick, the creature explains that he has already predicted what he thinks you will choose and he is almost always right. Based upon his prior prediction, he has already put either the spider or the Mona Lisa in Container 2. The contents of Container 2 will not change based upon what you pick. When predicting your decision and making the decision of what to put in the containers, if he thinks that you will choose just Container 2, he will have put the Mona Lisa in there; if he thinks that you will choose either both Container 1 and Container 2 or just Container 1, he will put the Spider in container 2.
What do you choose?
since he only claims to have the power of foresight, i'm going to assume i have a chance to beat him. he's a creature, and that gives me a negative connotation, and i'm thinking he's trying to avoid giving me the mona lisa. if he really had foresight and was evil, he wouldn't play this game if he knew i was going to win a mona lisa with my choice. and it wouldn't be much of a game if i felt like he was benevolent and had foresight and wanted me to win. so i'm assuming he doesn't want me to win. and so, assuming he doesn't have foresight, i'd naturally, initially, pick both - as long as i didn't have to touch the spider. i pick both because he's already made his decision and because i don't believe he had foresight.
if i believed he had foresight, then i'd only choose container 2 because he predicted that i would and so i'd get the mona lisa.
Point Breeze Penguins wrote:"The contemporary climate is therapeutic not religious. People today hunger not for personal salvation, let alone for the restoration of an earlier golden age, but for the feeling, the momentary illusion, of personal well-being, health, and psychic security." -- Christopher Lasch, "The Culture of Narcissism", pg. 7
Miguel De Unamuno wrote:The real starting point of all philosophy is self love [(narcissism)], the effort to persist in one's own being. The longing not to die, as Spinoza said, is our essence and the affective basis of all knowledge . . . I am given reasons against immortality, but it is not with reasons that the heart is appeased. To live is not my right, but it is my necessity . . . I will not abdicate my life -- my life must be wrested from me.
“There is a particular kind of pain, elation, loneliness, and terror involved in this kind of madness. When you're high it's tremendous. The ideas and feelings are fast and frequent like shooting stars, and you follow them until you find better and brighter ones. Shyness goes, the right words and gestures are suddenly there, the power to captivate others a felt certainty. There are interests found in uninteresting people. Sensuality is pervasive and the desire to seduce and be seduced irresistible. Feelings of ease, intensity, power, well-being, financial omnipotence, and euphoria pervade one's marrow. But, somewhere, this changes. The fast ideas are far too fast, and there are far too many; overwhelming confusion replaces clarity. Memory goes. Humor and absorption on friends' faces are replaced by fear and concern. Everything previously moving with the grain is now against-- you are irritable, angry, frightened, uncontrollable, and enmeshed totally in the blackest caves of the mind. You never knew those caves were there. It will never end, for madness carves its own reality.” --- Unknown
Benny Fitz wrote:Kraftster wrote:What about Richard Dawkins saying something like, "Surely the universe is queerer than we can suppose." Do you think there is a point where the human brain will max out and we won't be able to go any further in terms of understanding how the universe works?
For us the only universe that exsist is the one we can comprehend. Whereby really being the "universe". This kinda comes back to lables/ness'. The infinite nature of the universe is already something that most of us cant grasp, yet it exsist beyond our understanding (whether we get it or not). So arent we in some way already maxed out? or at least temporarily "maxed out"?
Godric wrote:LeopardLetang wrote:what was that unknown quote from from above?
Don't know how to answer this.
count2infinity wrote:so you're against her raising the child as non-religious? or what exactly is the question?