Thoughts?
Posted 19 December 2016 - 08:38 AM
Thoughts?
Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:26 PM
Hey FYI, this guy isn't religious, he's philosophising. It's got about as much truth in it as any other philosophical view, that being fuck all. It's about as factual as a ham sandwich, it doesn't make sense to talk about facts wrt it.
I mean, I don't disagree with the basis of his argument, for example the metacharacter idea, but that's fantastically old, just look at concepts like the Monomyth. Humans have general behavioural goals, and our characters are designed around what we believe we should behave as. The reason why some cultures can have monstrous heroes and some don't has to do with what that culture believes is a positive thing to do. Many of these are similar due to biological constraints of mankind.
I'd actually argue to that the metacharacters are generated from common human biology.
What I strongly disagree with is the outcome of the argument. These things are intrinsic so we need to accept them. I see the story of mankind as one of progress, one of overcoming our shortcomings and limitations. I see that everything, everything that makes us human should be ripped up, inspected, and if necessary discarded. Conveniently, I see this happening at the moment, I just worry about people who are afraid of this process and are trying to dial it back. Sure Jordan's arguing within my framework, but he's also arguing that we shouldn't mess with our core beliefs. I think we should.
Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:39 PM
I mean seriously, he literally says there is no alternative to his way of thinking or being than hell. That's such a stupid and fatalistic viewpoint. Spiritualism has no answer. The only objective is to prevent other people from using it to tell you what to do.
Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:41 PM
"there's no evidence for a relationship between intelligence and morality"
Possibly because morality is the same kind of metaconstruct as the characters? Possibly because it's not real?
Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:54 PM
Right cause Auschwitz is comparatively equal to transgenderism. Wow. What a way to end what started off as a half reasonable argument.
I mean, to begin with it was all fine, all legit and logical. But by the end of it all I was hearing was astounding hypocrisy. This guy was literally being what he all of five minutes ago said he was fighting against. There are people who are honestly helped by people accepting their experienced gender. I can think of at least one member of these forums specifically. Does that honestly harm anyone? Does that change anything about them? Does that breakdown moral rules of society? No, no, and no. Even if you're the most extreme, top tier skeptic who doesn't believe it's possible and that these people are all deluding themselves, does it harm them? Because it is not about you.
The end of that was just one guy forgetting he'd just told everyone to do the right thing for others and not letting others impose their views and will and morals on them... and proceeding to do just that, telling people what was right and wrong, what was good and bad, and what they should and should not be. This is what fucking infuriates me the most about moralistic spiritualistic types. It's not about you. Life is not a team sport. Everyone dies alone, everyone is born alone, and although you can get sideline support from your friends, family, and others, the things in your mind you have to face alone. No matter what anyone chooses for themselves, they are right, even when you disagree.
Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:53 AM
Edited by Lord Draculea, 20 December 2016 - 05:11 AM.
Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:35 AM
Edited by Lord Draculea, 20 December 2016 - 06:45 AM.
Posted 20 December 2016 - 08:17 PM
Well, actually, I will argue that they don't exist. See I'm an epistemological nihilist, an odd one that believes that nihilism gives the world more beauty, but anyway...
You think that's a chair. You think those are birds. You may even think you know what species. But what are species, chairs, birds, numbers? Categories. Human creations that simply do not exist in the real world, an overlay of our reality generated quite nicely by our mind. Numbers, all numbers fall into this. All mathematics does to. Can you empirically prove that a prime number is real? Sure you can write a mathematical proof perhaps, but that's still mathematical. You may rely on set theory, which is categorical. It's all not real. Sure it's fantastically handy at describing our universe, but it is not our universe. We may have very good facsimiles, but we don't actually know anything. A truth exists, probably, somewhere, but we are forever barred from knowing it, all we can do is watch and try to emulate.
So what we have are "real" things that we think we see and perceive, and unreal things that we think of. There are different levels of unreal, things that roughly agree with our rules for reality (like math), and things that simply don't, or aren't required by those rules (like morals, for example)... but in essence nothing at all that people think of can be trusted.
Posted 21 December 2016 - 10:23 AM