I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jul 21st, 2004 02:50 PM

kellychaos

A perfect return, methinks.

Jul 21st, 2004 02:44 PM

Brandon

I hate you all so much.

Jul 20th, 2004 11:00 PM

Emu

As much as I like Dennett, the term "Bright" is kind of silly.

Jul 20th, 2004 10:54 PM

Sethomas

When I was recently going through my period as a Bright--one who does not believe in an afterlife--I decided that I would remain as silent as possible on the matter. My reasoning was that virtue for too many people is grounded in faith in divine retribution, so to rob them of that idea would make them angry, spiteful, and possibly vendictive. Certainly not a good thing for society at large. For others, I didn't want to scare people to the facts of oblivion. Some people can't handle it, so heaven is a pleasant lie that should not be robbed of them.

After a bottle of wine, though, I reinstated my belief in an afterlife and have yet to recant anew.

Jul 20th, 2004 10:04 PM

punkgrrrlie10

Tim-may

Jul 20th, 2004 09:06 PM

Helm

Hello, 'Artificial Brandon'. I am Helm. I am the current administrator of this sub-forum (philosophy and/or politics) of the I-mockery.net message boards. You asked a few interesting questions, but I judge that you did not get any reasonable replies by any of the regulars of this sub-forum (philosophy and/or politics). Furthermore, the regular, 'Dole' made a remark which besides being completely besides the topic, was intended in humourous spirit, which is to say, was what many of the regulars in other sub-forums of the i-mockery.net message boards, such as 'General Blabber' would consider to be 'fun', perhaps, even, to illustrate their ill-ment approval, they would also quote the message in part, or in it's entirety, likeso:

Quote:

Its a toughie, but I'd have to say 'The White Album'.

and then follow it with the usage of one of the many popular internet 'emotion-icons' such as "

" or maybe

".

Needless to say, I find such off-topic, lighthearted remarks to be completely incompartible with the spirit of this particular sub-forum (philosophy and/or politics) and thusly I've decided to intervene, concisely answering all your queries, and hopefully injecting a much-needed dose of seriousness in this conversation, hopefully rendering it worthy of being posted in this here section (philosophy and/or politics) of the i-mockery message boards. After all, it's All I've Got to Do.

So, let's see what ill-concieved uroboric misconceptions we can promptly anihilate by usage of the abundant, brilliant, incandescent light of reason that only the brain of an a truly awakened mind can provide, hm?

Also, the member 'Dole' is urged to reconsider his attitude towards the boards. Such serious matters should not be attempted to be rendered frivolous, neither should a regular of such astounding tenure allow himself to steer off-topic even for the sake of the slightest lark. Standards must be maintained, which is to say, they must be uniformly adhered by all members, regardless of status. I trust this offence will be repeated Not a Second Time. For No One reason.

Well, anyway, since you Asked me Why.

Quote:

Let's say, for example, that a philosopher has determined that the "absolute truth" of existence is that all values are baseless; that nihilism and moral relativism are indeed true.

Are you aware that if all values were to be baseless, then to make any sort of moral argument (as the one in your example), no matter how non-exclusive the scope of it, would be equally baseless? In making the whole moral context redundant, you're essentially making any commentation on it equally so, which is to say, equal to absolute redundancy. if 'A' refers to 'A' and says " 'A is meaningless", well, here's your self-refferential fallacy.

It is, sadly the case that many philosophical enthusiasts tend to go by the 'Think for Yourself' type of philosophical research, but as it is, if you've read your Post-Modernists, you'd have spared yourself of this recursive arguement. Maybe, 'Artificial Brandon', it's time to ask yourself, 'I Should Have Known Better'.

Quote:

Should that philosopher promote his "truth," even if there is reason to believe that moral relativism will poison and corrode his society? Do philosophers have responsibility in regard to the ideas they churn out and endorse?

It is my oppinion, which I've based on My Life's experiences, that a philosopher's responsibility is towards truth, personal awareness, knowledge. The resulting well-being or lack thereof, as a philosophy is attempted should not be considered a prime factor in determining the validity of said philosophy unless such a necessity is expicitly stated in the fundamental axioms of said, said philosophy.

Quote:

Would a "noble lie" ever be considered a good thing?

Do you see the continuation of a shallow, bare existance as the ultimate end (as in 'means to an') for humanity?

Quote:

Is it better for the majority of people to go on believing in "good" and "evil" absolutes, even if they're false? Is it possible that falsehood, not truth, is a necessary condition for life?

Better in terms of well-being yes, in terms of awareness and understanding, no. Useful lies are obviously needed for everyday life for most people, but then again, in my oppinion the specific qualities of everyday life should be re-evaluated, and be strictly severed from the atavistic instinct that seems to drive life towards senseless feeding on itself.

There. I trust that this thread will from here and onwards continue in an acceptable level of seriousness. This is a matter both of ontology and of ethical philosophy, as as such, must be delt with an extra dosage of the strict and inclement gravity that only a adequately formal, long-winded post, fully devoid of any pop culture references and/or other 'modern humour' cliches, such as this, can provide. And, thusly, there are all the Things We Said Today, which is not to say that I Will not Be Back to further illuminate you if you ever need more Help! I'll take it that such will not be the case if you make No Reply.

And with this I conclude my message, which is is to say, this is decidedly, The End :serious

Jul 12th, 2004 03:42 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

All Is Truth By Walt Whitman (1819-1892)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O me, man of slack faith so long,
Standing aloof, denying portions so long,
Only aware to-day of compact all-diffused truth,
Discovering to-day there is no lie or form of lie, and can be none,
but grows as inevitably upon itself as the truth does upon itself,
Or as any law of the earth or any natural production of the earth does.

(This is curious and may not be realized immediately, but it must be
realized,
I feel in myself that I represent falsehoods equally with the rest,
And that the universe does.)

Where has fail'd a perfect return indifferent of lies or the truth?
Is it upon the ground, or in water or fire? or in the spirit of man?
or in the meat and blood?

Meditating among liars and retreating sternly into myself, I see
that there are really no liars or lies after all,
And that nothing fails its perfect return, and that what are called
lies are perfect returns,
And that each thing exactly represents itself and what has preceded it,
And that the truth includes all, and is compact just as much as
space is compact,
And that there is no flaw or vacuum in the amount of the truth--but
that all is truth without exception;
And henceforth I will go celebrate any thing I see or am,
And sing and laugh and deny nothing.

Jul 12th, 2004 08:43 AM

Dole

Its a toughie, but I'd have to say 'The White Album'.

Jul 11th, 2004 06:16 PM

kahljorn

That's a stupid question

All things, whether RIGHT OR WRONG, GOOD OR EVIL, TRUE OR FALSE spread their opposer like wildfire. If someone's walking around, lying to people and calling it a truth... people will accept it as a truth. True and false have absolutely no bearing on reality.

Jul 11th, 2004 06:12 PM

Brandon

Philosophical Responsibility

Let's say, for example, that a philosopher has determined that the "absolute truth" of existence is that all values are baseless; that nihilism and moral relativism are indeed true.

Should that philosopher promote his "truth," even if there is reason to believe that moral relativism will poison and corrode his society? Do philosophers have responsibility in regard to the ideas they churn out and endorse?

Would a "noble lie" ever be considered a good thing? Is it better for the majority of people to go on believing in "good" and "evil" absolutes, even if they're false? Is it possible that falsehood, not truth, is a necessary condition for life?

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off