New to here.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hi, my name is Minh, and I’m asian.

Umm, I just really like to think about why people do certain things.
I am on a quest to be unbiased, which is … unfortunately very difficult ( and I’m beginning to think impossible, actually I’m about 99% sure it is. )
My whole thing is that man will never know truth. Truth is obviously what we know ourselves to be true. I live on a basis, foundation I guess, that not everything can be 100%. One can easily argue the point being that 1 + 1 = 100, or even 2124 r squared. People have set up these “rules” called morals and ethics, but to whom does this power go to? Life, is just one of the many religions out there. I really like talking about paradoxes and stuff that just doesn’t make sense. I like power issues, fault issues. I just really want to talk to people that have really deep thoughts and just show me the many ways of thinking towards a scenario. So, just post what your whole thinking is based on, any kind of problems/situations that have been debated and still debated and all the controversials in here.

And, I’m young and probably still ignorant to many things, enlighten me. (Enlightenment, yessssss)

2

I’m old and still ignorant on many subjects. Don’t let that discourage you though…it seems you have started earlier with your analytical skills. :slight_smile:

3

I agree that we can only approach truth, as oppose to realize it. Though I do think that rules can be described as contingently true because they have been defined that way. So, 1+1=2 because it is said so. Now, whether or not that statement has any bearing on the real world (where truth exists) is another matter entirely.

Check out Instrumentalism and see what you think.

4

How does one come up with these moral rules that one follow throughout his life?
I almost fully believe that a person’s nature is affected by only his environment. Genes and such might become a variable, but I don’t believe that people are inherently good or evil.
1+1 = 2 . We all accept this to be true (all as in…never mind not all) only because it’s implanted into our heads that if we take one thing, and add that same thing, we have two of the same things.
It could be said that chair + sky = scarcity. These are just words, and whatever it means is how we see it means.
But, I think humans are thinking on an entirely too restricted of a path. We are basically lineal thinkers, we see whats from point A to point B
Past to present, and later to future. Maybe this way of thinking has restricted the human psyche.
I also believe that people’s choices, every single one of them is the best choice. Now, you can’t argue to me that it is not the best choice without having your own regards and definitions as of what is the “best”. It’s how I think, and it keeps me interested, so I’m not bored out of my mind.

5

By using what works. At least that is how I figure it ought be done. 1+1=2 has indeed been planted in our heads. And it is, in many ways, entirely arbitrary. As arbitrary as any tautology, anyway. But we can build off 1+1=2 and create all sorts of useful things. Well, provided that 1+1=2 is a metaphor for mathematics in toto. Sky+chair=scarcity could be rendered as a tautology, could be logically defined and all that. But what does it do? If it doesn’t do anything, why ought be believe it? Like anything else, logic is a tool. And it can be applied in the wrong way or towards fruitless ends.

6

.< I don’t know what tautology is.
I guess what I’m saying is that yeah, we’ve used a simple arithmetic problem to create great things. But these accepted “truths” are only that, they are accepted. Many people like to suggest and claim they know something to its fullest extent ( that’s why it is so hard to argue with someone that has strong or even little religious views )

I read A Prayer for Owen Meany, a story of a Christ-like child that fulfills seemingly miraculous actions. My whole class thought of it this way, a story that shows the powers of God and Christ alike.

I simply thought that Owen Meany (the christ-like kid) was just a psychopathic sociapath. He created his own reality that he believes to be true, and he goes out and fulfills it. He presumably knows the day he dies, how he dies and who is there. All this can be created, man-made. I’m going to narrow this down to christianity preferably Presbyterian (because this is the majority of the people i know).

Jesus, a person who has visions, knows things that he shouldn’t know. He goes out and creates a cult I’ll call it. One man, that could have even created his own religion. Was he just another sociopath? But his ideas got passed through?

If another person such as himself were to arise today, to tell people to “drink his blood and dine on his body” and that he’s the savior, and he creates seemingly miraculous events that all seem to be truthful, would he not be shut down? Put Jesus into the modern world, I’d say he’d get shot.

7

A tautology is just a circular definition. “A is A” type stuff. The way logic works, initial premises are defined tautologically and the system goes from there. But logic is only useful insofar as the premises relate to the world. Logic lets you ‘check yourself before you wreck yourself’ but it isn’t generative.

As for the sociopath you described, sure, that is how a lot of things work. And if the sociopath in question presents a convincing model, one ‘better’ than the current paradigm being followed, they will gather followers. But these sort of things are highly situation dependent.

Sure, asking people to engage in ritual cannibalism would probably be rejected provided it is outside of a clearly Christian setting or based off a Christian mythos. But asking people to kill themselves so they can join with the alien spaceship hiding behind a comet finds followers. Different lines for different times.

8

Welcome, Minh the Asian.

Absolute truths only exist in the systems in which we create them. For instance, we create a system of mathematics. Within that system, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. We can say that because we created the system.

Now, as for absolutes outside of a system…well…good luck with that one!

9

Hmm, what about your ideas on

“What do you say, when I say that everyone makes the best choices?”

i posted this as my facebook status, and people respond with

“stop lying to me”
“What about regret, you can’t always make the best decision”
“it’s impossible”
i replied with

"It’s utterly possible.
A person has a choice between A and B.
Which one is good? Let’s say no one knows.
The person makes a choice, knowing the outcome or not.
He therefore made the best choice.
Scenario 1.
They know the consequences, and decides to choose one over the other. Thus making that choice, the better choice, even if he thinks it’s not the best choice, he has his own reasons to why choosing one over another, to him it is the best choice.
Scenario 2.
He does not know the consequences, but still chooses. In his mind, what he chooses seems to have a better outcome, he therefore made the better decision.

Explanation.
The best choice, who get’s to dictate it. If you think about it, a choice is the best one. Any choice, because the outcome that you want is within this choice, it is the best choice, because it gives the return, exactly how it is. This exactly how it is is not known…if it is, then we’d be taking about future predictions.

Everyone does make the best choice."

and

"It doesn’t matter what he anticipates. Every choice has a consequence, known or unknown. And that consequence is the best outcome for that choice. For every choice anyone makes, it has the best possible outcome for that choice. So regardless of what the person feels before or after, as soon as the choice has been made, it becomes the best one.

If you look at my post, it says “everyone makes the best choices.”
This has no limit to the translation, it’s worded like that for a reason. Just to show you how things work for me."

10

Minh,

Welcome to ILP.

You are clearly very inquisitive and must be intelligent and open-minded to be asking the questions that you are asking. I am personally glad to have another open-minded individual here with us on this forum.

My only suggestion is since your questions are covering so much ground, perhaps you may consider creating a new thread, if not for each question, then at least for every few questions.

That said, I look forward to talking with you and hope you remain an ILP poster for a long time to come.

11

you should look into determinism.

On the subject of moral truths, Xunzian was right in that whatever works can pretty much qualify as a good moral.

We choose morals based on our desires.

Each person has their own agenda and desires, and is liable to use different moral standards.

And even the logic of morals are debatable.

It seems that you’re on the look out for purpose. The meaning of life.

When embarking on this journey you should not depend on ever finding an answer, because there might not be one.

12

Sounds to me like you are rockin’ some existentialism there. Check out Sartre. We are all ‘doomed to be free’. Couple that with some Mills and then all of a sudden every choice we make is the best one!

I find it somewhat unsatisfactory, but explore it and see what you think!

13

I’m not really looking for the meaning of life per say, just “why?” Even though they can cross paths, I find it more interesting to ask why or even why not.
I’ve always asked since like 5 years old, my sisters would get so annoyed at it.

Well, the search for the meaning of life is a futile one, I agree. It’s almost the same as life being hard, and if it was easy, then what would be the point?
Maybe the meaning of life is just life itself, to live. To do as you do during life. You get one life, at least in this world I know nothing of any other worlds.

And I still can’t figure out how the mind works… watching cartoons that bring this question up really is interesting (Full Metal Alchemist)

How does one have the mind, why are we able to think? If we were to recreate everything that our body has into something else, and same structure, there still would be no life within that structure.

o.O random thoughts sorry, it happens. :slight_smile:

14

Like I’ve said before.
The desire and ability to understand ones environment is a product of evolution, as it has been useful enough to survival to be kept around.
Information which is useful to survival is right.

Right is a concept which we associate with that which is useful to survival.
Truth is a concept associated with the thought conveyed which leads to the action that is right.

There is no human concept that is universal, because humans are not universal. The concept of a concept is a human concept.

15

Lol, I like that “The concept of a concept is a human concept”

Everything that is true to us, is what we make truth to be. This “real” truth is what the existence is to be. But, what if existence isn’t true, and is also a product of our “concepts”?

I think Socrates best describes this “All I know is that I know nothing.” one of my favorite quotes.

As we learn more, we inevitably figure out our own stupidity and ignorance to what is around us. Only by gaining more knowledge, will one really understand that they just don’t know. I think future advances will change completely our understanding of physics. The ongoing experiments with light speed … that’s an interesting one that I think will defy all the scientists that created the theories and laws that we abide by today.

16

there is no here, here… so welcome to nowhere.

17

i think you’ve been trying to get that one out way too long and you can’t stand it any longer, lol.

Of course there’s a here, here. Here is a place, this is a place, this is here, and here is here, not a place that isn’t.
But, it is nowHERE, not noWHERE, where and here, are two different words, and meanings. So it is here, and here is here, and now
I’m here.