Real World Philospohy
 

Real World Philosophy

Just post your philosphies for real life and the real world.

I have all day to do anything that I want and at the end of the day I find that I have done nothing at all. Time flies. - William C

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

apparently, i have a work ethic. i was quite suprised.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

i go by my own philosophy that being....every day's experiences writes a page to the manual we need to get through the days to come

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

I like the one in my sig... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Of course, it only really applies to game play, not real life...

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Sounds like a good place to quote one of my favourite quotes (said while watching someone sky dive or bungie jump or something like that)

"I hope my life never gets so boring that I have to risk my life to make it interesting" -A.K.Gunstensen

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">actualy, skydiving is one of the safest sports around - hell, fishing is dangerouse.

but anyway here is mine:

"the destinction between Past Present and Future is only an illusion" - Einstein.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Utilitarianism mainly, combination of that with other ones in small amounts.
Basically utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that will maximize the good and minimize the bad, by using hedonic calculus, problem is assigning the values to the varz.
Somethign like that

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Much as any ethical system tries to hide it, they all rest on one or more unproveable assumptions somewhere along the line, of the "feel good" variety or otherwise. As such, there isn't too terribly much point with all the intervening logic, as it all rests on the assumption(s) anyway. Much simpler to take an absolute stance and state a thing is right or wrong flat out. I go with the Ten Commandments, perhaps adding a dab of some of the others ethical systems every here and there for the odd situation.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

ah, but if God tells you something, it isn't an assumption.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really?
Do you go with them all the way?
What about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
Vegan?
Or "Remember the Sabath and Keep It Holy"?
Does one do nothing on Saturdays? Not use computers, or do math, or anything that could be 'work'?
Or (losing the exactness on this one) "No Graven Images and Stuff"?
Wouldn't that count photographs and even the image on a computer or television screen?
It would at least count 'action figures' and a large number of salt and pepper shakers.
They're even shaped like cows sometimes.

I try to live my life around forgiveness: Don't hold anything agaisnt anyone else; Don't hold things against yourself. Basically "Don't Be Hurt", which is not the same a "Don't Get Hurt" becuase that gets you nowhere fast. "Don't Get Hurt" sucks.

Guilt and Grudge are both burdens that prevent you from enjoying life or even living the life you'd like to live, from being the person you wish you were. This doens't mean that you shouldn't learn from your mistakes, or that you should let another wrong you again and again. It's more about the attitude you have toward the past.

All bad things come from Hurt. By limiting the Hurt in my life I can lower the amount of Hurt around me and make the world a better place.

Now, if only I could actually live that way...

Some Absurdest once said something like "It is the nature of a man to recognize he is flaw, desire to better himself, and to be unable to do much of anything significant about it." I'm pretty sure I got that wrong...

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I always take what the little voices say with a grain of salt. If it's really God, why does it sound like Gilbert Gottfried.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

God doesn't sound like whoever Gilbert whatever does. i can garentee that.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, God existing is a pretty big assumption to begin with.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

unless God tells you he does.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

I try to go with the motto:
Everything in Moderation.

Maybe that's why my alter-ego is TAZ; who's motto seems to be the exact opposite:

Take Everything to the Extreme! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

narf:
That is extremely circular...

[ November 06, 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

that is why science will never solve the mysteries of the universe. but how circular is it?

suppose you think there's a river on the other sider of a mountain. now, suppose that your crippled and could never make it to the other side of the mountain. now, suppose i had been there and could tell you about the river. now, suppose i had a perfect memory,(hard) and that i never lied,(not so hard) and that you knew both those things. so, you can know about things you've never seen and can't prove. of course, the analogy's not exact. none are.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Posted by Narf:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">...Well you could be an evil twin (clone?) that has NO memory and so always lies! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

*whacks Taz with the analogy*

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

And who is this alleged person with a perfect memory and that never lied? Keep in mind that "religion" started with primitive man as a means to explain everything he could not understand (which was pretty much everything around him). The concept of "God" did not come along until 100,000s of years later. Before some people in ancient Babylon began claiming that there was only one God (the Jews), everyone believed in either multiple gods or some other belief in which everything (people, animals, rocks, etc.) was spiritual (with the occasional "other"). Of course, there were probably some minor pockets of monotheism before Judaism came along, but that is the one that got the whole notion of one God going strong (after quite some time, mind you).

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

And about that science bit... more mysteries of the universe are solved with each passing decade. It is only a matter of time. Could be many 1000s of years before we can find a practical way to get to other places than Sol (assuming that is even possible), but it will eventually be done.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

science has a lot of guesswork, scientists are priests. you speculate on the the nature of the microwave background, when as far as i know, we still havn't >taken a sample from another planet in our own solar system.<

getting answer's from a diety has no holes in it.

[ November 06, 2003, 04:38: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

posted by Narf:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oww! That hurts!
Taz grabs the analogy - 'Bite' log 'chew'
And hits Narf with the remaining LOG! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Posted by Fyron:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some scientists say we could visit the nearer solar neighbors NOW.
(It would just take decades, and require a MASSIVE global effort!)

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

God is not a good nice God, he is a evil dark lord that rules our minds, mythos, and history with an iron fist of hatred, war, death, and vengance. Our lot for killing his only son is to live our lives knowning that we will one day die.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

no, humans do the war, killing and misery.

people say 'why doesn't God stop it?' but they don't realize the choices are slavery or free will. that's it.

oh, and death isn't as scary once you know it's not the end. in fact, i think i'll enjoy life more once i'm dead. no more aching back, no more aching feet.

[ November 06, 2003, 05:20: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I said they all rest on an assumption somewhere - I didn't say where. Tell me - why should God's word be authoritative on the question of ethics? Don't get me wrong, it is - but why is it? For that matter, it is an assumption that good is inherently better than bad, or that better is something that should be sought, or ... - there are a zillion of them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lutheran - expanded Version, encompassing data from the rest of the Bible as well as just those two sections in Exodus 20 and Deutoronomy 5. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Technically, plants are alive, so when you eat them, you kill them. Fortunately, it's "Thou shalt not murder" not thou shalt not kill. There is a considerable difference. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ever read Mark 2:27? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's idol, not image; the key difference between an idol and your list is worshiping. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Quite accurate; interestingly, the Ten commandments say absolutely nothing about revenge - directly, at least. The New Testament, and many places in the Old Testament, speak much of forgiveness. The Ten Commandments are the standard I try to measure actions by; after all, any system of ethics is primarily concerned with deciding "ought" and "ought nots".

[ November 06, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">first question - answer's from God are athorative. can't explain it any better than that. second. good doesn't want you to die wailing in dispair. third. better is better. explains itself.

and now i must sleep.

[ November 06, 2003, 05:43: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A variation on "it just is" - one of the ways of identifing an underlying assumption. Don't get me wrong, the assumption is correct - but that can't be proven this side of Doomsday, so it remains an assumption for the duration.

Assumptions aren't inherently a bad thing. They are ultimately all any string of reasoning or logic has to rest on. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That just leaves another why: Why should dying while wailing in dispair be something to be avoided? Don't get me wrong, it is something to be avoided; but sooner or later (if the chain is not infinite) there that chain can be followed back to a "feelings" argument, a circular argument, a variation on "it just is", or an an out and out assumption. All of the four classifications of possible eventuals are assumptions, of one guise or another. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Another variation on "it just is". Don't get me wrong - you are correct that better is better; but why better should be sought? That's a different question. There are some philosophies out there - of the fate variety, usually - that don't advocate seeking better as there is exactly nothing you can actually do to influence events. Mind you, they are wrong, and you are right, but that can't be proven.

I'm in an odd mood today....

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

People spend their lives wondering why and what if. They hide, they duck, they go on wishing for good luck. But in time the dime is dropped and all that was twas no more. The joke is on us, and no matter how much we ignor the truth of our lives, in the end all that will matter is that nothing mattered at all.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

The average life span of 75 years is not enough time to live an average life.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've done this many times, and I'm way too tired and busy to do this right now, but what the heck, once more into the fray in defense of science and against the enemies of organized religion!

Science is more than a collection of facts and theories (though it is also that). It is above all a methodology to discover facts and formulate theories. Though it is true that most of the general public regard scientists as high priests, that is only because most people have allowed that to happen, i.e. let themselves fall behind the research curve so much that the arguments, speculations etc. of scientists have become wholly unfathomable to them.

The most wonderful thing about science in my opinion is that in principle, anyone, limited only by their own time and interest, can follow in the footsteps of the work of scientists and verify scientific results on their own.

Narf seems to argue that science doesn't offer the same kind of certainty from which stems spiritual satisfaction that most forms of organized religion. I agree that this is probably true for the vast majority of people. But then science isn't "meant" to satisfy any spiritual urges. It doesn't have to be a bromide, to use a word beloved by Ayn Rand, it only has to be "true".

One of my conceptions of paradise is the world described by Greg Egan in his novelette "Border Guards". In it, humans are immortal, all but indestructible, with all but infinite powers at their disposal (though none have the power to truly hurt another being without his/her/its consent), and above all with constant access to the huge database of human knowledge. In this world, a talented few actually push back the frontiers of knowledge, but the vast majority only follow far, far behind, living lives not unlike that of many university students, studying for the raw pleasure of study, intersped by moments of play, conversation and love.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Who the hell really knows?

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course. But I was responding to your claim that you follow the Ten Commandments, not the apparently implied claim that you follow the Ten Commandments as modified by certain later scholars and holy men. That would be different.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which probably contributes to the fact there is so much killing going on.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Hmm... this is difficult to translate, but basically my motto is "Let others be if they let you be." Don't try to impose anything on people who are not being actively disruptive.

Conversely, don't try to impose anything on me. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.

At the same time, I try to be supportive of other people, help them whenever I can. Knowledge should not be hoarded.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

my views are my views and your views are your views.it's only when everyone realizes that everyone's views are different and unique to their own and can look past that will mankind ever truly be able to move forward

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

You are right, Narf, there are a lot of similarities between Science and Religion. The big difference between Science and all the other Dogma out there is that science is wrong. No other Dogma is willing to admit that it is wrong, if that ever happens, it is abandoned and people invent a new one, maybe giving it the same name, but the words of higher powers are never wrong.

Science, on the other hand, is wrong. It is allowed to be. It is constantly correcting itself, improving, and moving forward. True science does not require faith, because "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and science is not about hope, or the unperceivable. Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Some areas commonly associated with science are difficult to prove, but that doesn't stop people from trying, and from taking the results and forming new theories. The psychology of an individual and certain actions or trends of great scale, like astrophysics, evolutionary biological trends, or even economics, may still be highly theoretical simply because we do not yet have the technology to make the needed measurements, let alone to run or reproduce an experiment. So these might not be Hard Sciences, and these might, for now, require 'faith'. We're working on it.

Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally, the experiments on which many modern principles of Science depend. And you might claim this moves Science into the realm of faith. And you might point out that the lingua sancti of Science, Math, has grown so large that no one man can understand all its fields, in fact I believe that Last man to do so was John Herschel, who died in 1871. And you might have a point. But they can be proven, where faith is reserved for those thing that can't.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

While I agree with most of Loser's points, I believe there is a larger issue you are all missing.

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

I don't like arguing religion. Neither side can ever win because it is... faith. And faith by it's nature can never be proved or disproved.

But... as to misery on earth being created by humans and free will... Last I checked hurricans and tornadoes and earthquakes weren't caused by humans and their freewill.

Now you can use the old argument that such disasters give people a chance to show their virtues such as bravery etc... but doesn't that interfere with freewill? In addition aren't all the man made disasters, such as war, collapsing buildings etc enough for people to prove their virtues without having to cause great disasters that kill, maim, torture and otherwise do evil to those who possibly have done nothing to deserve that. (What does a 2 month old baby do to deserve something like that? Wasn't original sin taken care of already with Christ?)

I could go on and on with the problems in organized religion and unorganized and most of the religious texts (several of which I have read in several different translations) ....

There is no point to doing so however. Experience has showed me that people who believe believe regardless and arguments to the contrary, even ones they can't counter won't have any affect. That is the nature of faith.

Those who don't believe already don't believe so what is the point?

Let me just say that the God who talks to me is right and yours is wrong! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! My morale and ethical values are correct and you can either agree with me or you can be wrong! Fortunatly for you, you don't have to believe in my God to get the good afterlife or at least a second chance. Those who are deserving of punishment shall recieve it based on a code of ethics and morales to complex to be accuratly placed into words, but not having the faith isn't adequate cause to be eternally damned to torture and pain.

After all... what is the point of having free will and punishing for the wrong choices if you tell at least 5 different people that they have the one true path and all others are damned and can't agree on what is and isn't forgiveable?!?


Just my few cents worth or whatever other currency you want to use.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Nice, Erax. I'll keep that point around for the next time I get in one of these.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

My philosophy is to never discuss politics, sciences, religions, and world issues over the dinner table.

IMHO, it's the most solid one there is in this world of ours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 06, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Assuming there is no God is an equally big assumption.
It takes faith to accept God's existence, but it also takes faith to deny it.
Truly scientific thinking should give the benefit of doubt to something that although cannot be proven cannot be disproved either.

I like to think it's possible that there is somekind of superior being (or beings), although I doubt any religion is right about its nature.
If there is a god, He (or She or They) should be able to show himself in a way that even the most skeptic would have to admit He's real, and if He wants us to behave in any particular way He should give clear instructions of what He wants us to do.

The lack of such proof leads me to conclude that either 1- there is no god, or 2- He is powerless to affect our world or 3- He doesn't care what we do or what happens to us.

But those are just my personal thoughts. And it's not my intention to force my point of view on anyone else.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Given that just about every logical possibility has been set forth by the world religions, it just can't be that they're all equally wrong. If logic and rationality hold true in the religious/spiritual sphere as they do in other areas (and I think they do), then somebody has to be right - or at least more right than the others. It is impossible that Bertrand Russell (atheist), Gandhi (pantheist/Hindu), and G. K. Chesterton (Roman Catholic) were equally right/wrong as to the nature of supernatural reality. The question is, "how do we tell"?

EDIT - name errors

[ November 06, 2003, 22:55: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Of course, if reality depends on your point of view, it would be possible that all three were perfectly correct.

You might say they're not in the same universe anymore, though.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">4- God is a Jerk and deserves our scorn.

I lean towards #1, but #4 is more satisfying.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

first, Jack, while from the point of view of someone who hasn't gotten an answer from God such answer's appear as assumption's, they are not. it's a matter of perspective. as for why should better be sought? well, you have to have experienced better to know that. if you havn't, then an answer is meaningless, except to give you the theory. and any explanation of what better gives you would just go over that whole ground again.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Atrocities, you seem very caught up with dying. let me assure you, God does not blame humanity for his Son's death. God and his Son are one and his Son said 'forgive them, for they know not what they do'. besides the fact that most of humanity wassn't there. second, the whole purpose of the Son's coming here was to die. there's a place in the bible where Jesus is talking to Moses and a couple of other people and there talking about Him accomplishing His glorious purpose. which was to die. so that your sins could be forgiven and so that you could live again in the resurection. which resurection is nessatated by our first parents, who ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, which incident, by the way, i beleive to have been both good and nessasary. God had commanded them to be fruitfull and multiply. and all will be resurected, rendering death irrelevent, besides any life after death. irrevelent, at least, as something to fear because of the loss of this mortal body, which i do view as a loss. God created man in God's image, and man has flesh and bones. and on a Last note, 500 years would not be enough time, nor would 5000.

second, Deccan, i argue that a lot of scientists today are very certain on what seems to me little evidence. plus, i don't think any religeon can offer true joy, anymore than any philosophy or science can. that is a gift of God. however, science, philosophy and religeon can help, so long as they are honest seeker's after truth. and a religeon set up by God would naturaly be the most reliable.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">that is a specious arguement. i'm not entirely sure what specious means, but i think it means 'flimsy'. i could argue better that the knowledge that God exists is more likely to make someone obey the law.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">the problem is, Erax, and i'm not saying you do this, but some people won't allow you to tell them anything. apparently, i have no right to tell me beleif's to anyone. that doesn't explain how those same people feel free to tell people there belief that people don't have a right to tell people there belief's. have i confused anybody yet? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes, but the words of people purporting to speak for the higher power often are, which is why you should always pray to God. after all, if someone tells you that i said people should do this, that and the other, hopefully you'll ask me before you start spreading it around. uh, i'm not trying to imply i'm God. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
and there will be a religious expeirence that's scientifically provable. the second coming. nobody will be able to miss that, which is why your supposed to ignore anyone who says 'lo, here!' and 'lo, there!'.

no, Erax, true religeon exists to bring people closer to God. the why is just part of it.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">'if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth liberally and upbraideth not.' i forget which one that is.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">no, that's weather patterns and techtonics. which God did set up. but one thing i forgot to say is the choices aren't just slavery or free will, it's also expeirence or innocence. innocence might sound great until you realise that your cat is innocent and, becuase of that, will never be anything more. growth tends to involve pain. otherwise, you would tend not to value it.
without natural disasters, i think people would be impelled to create more of there own. it's the destructive urge.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">people change their minds. hopefully, for the better.
people can make up religeon's on their own. plus, i think a few religeon's are corruptions of ancient, God-given ones.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">God has given clear instructions. but if God presented Himself undeniably to you, wouldn't that force your point of view?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ask God.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i've always thought that theory was arrogant.

Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.

[ November 07, 2003, 00:51: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

So Narf, why is the particular religious doctrine that you believe in correct, whereas the other countless 1000s are not?

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

well, Fyron, your going to really love this answer...because God told me it is. well, actually, he told me to join that church, and that church believes it is the true one. which chain of logic is strong enough for me.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

All religions believe they are the one true religion...

So when did you have a chat with God?

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Fyron, are you willing to consider the idea that someone may have a conversation with God and be sane?