Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: "life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" ---------more general and relating to the fact that the universe will continue to exist even after life ceases to exist.
I actually realize I made a mistake in they typing of it. I meant to say "Life more than likely does not, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value". I hope that people got that as what I meant to say. Anyways, what exactly are you trying to say? Of course I think the universe will continue to exist after I am dead.. what does that have to do with wether it has inherent meaning or value? Im not sure if I am following you on this one.
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: "my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others."---------this is an opinion based on feelings as you are an emotional object ("object" because it is more general in this context).
Of course I am emotional. Humans are emotional. Why should I cut that out of the mix? Why should my feelings be ignored? Why should your feelings be ignored in this matter? We arent Vulcans. We dont deny our feelings. What does logic say about the human condition? What does logic say about human emotions? Logic can ALWAYS be broke down into numbers and formulas. Can you say the same thing about human emotions? Do you not see the conflict? A being, who is prone to emotion (something that cant be broken down into numbers) in a NON-emotional cosmos (which can be broke down into numbers). Are you willing to sacrifice your mother if it meant saving a childs life? How about 5 children, 20 children, 100 children? Are you willing to sacrifice your OWN life for another? Even if you do not like the person? what if you do like the person? Will that seem more logical that you like the person as oppsed to NOT liking him? Do you see the conflict?
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: irrational= emotion
Yes. The rational side of me agrees with you. And for the most part I try to keep the rational part of me in control. But some decisions you make are not based on rational things. Is it rational to want sex for fun? What if it is a sex act that you disagree with? Is that rational? How do you break that down into logical numbers? Logic must work on formulas. Numbers. How do you number that? The absurdity is not inherent in just the human, nor is the absirdity just inherent in the cosmos. It is when you combine the two when the absurd condition is created. If it was just you, and only you, there would be no absurdity. If it was just the cosmos and only the cosmos, there would be no absurdity. But by the mixing of the two the absurdity happens. It is not just an emotional being in a non emotional cosmos. There is more to it than that.
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: One view governed by raw rationality(only rationality and not 5 units of rationality and 1 unit of emotions in this example) and the other governed by raw emotion(same kind of comparison as raw rationality in this example).
Yes, but that isnt the entire philosophy. Of course we are irrational when it comes to some of our thoughts and emotions, but the cosmos is not thinking or emotional. Strangely enough we ARE from the cosmos, and in a way you can say we ARE the cosmos (if you understand materialistic and atomic thinking...I assume that yo do.)..abstractions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
It is okay to let your emotions engulf you sometimes. It is going to happen. Materialism and absurdism are compatable and stackable.
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: Labeling me as an Nihilist and/or Idealist in response to what I said above will not work because they are labels and labels carry with them preconceived assumptions even if they are relate to other labels. you would have to express each label you use in this mathematical model as linear combinations of each other to justify a general label from the linear combinations to properly label just one person. Also, any labels is too stringent because you can add x number of label vectors to the vector end of the equation along with y number of z different units assuming x=y and z can be any number(even complex numbers if required) and come up with a new batch of labels which are dependent on the new parameters.
Is not labels how we tag things and concepts so that we understand them? With that said doesnt tagging things seem to be generalized? Could we have definitions with out "labeling" things? You have already labeled those variables. You labeled them x, y, z.
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: I still embrace Atheism as a label and that doesn't contradict the mathematical model I just constructed above.
Im fine with atheism. I dont mind the label. I have used the label many times.I dont think it does a good job describing me, but it does describe SOME of what I am. Thats okay with me in other places, but on this thread I speak exactly how I feel as this topic is specifically for me emphasising what I DO believe. Atheism is a statement about what I DONT believe.
and calling yourself an atheist? Would it not make more sense to say "I am atheist." Which means "I am without theism" instead of "I am an without theism.". Just a random question: Is fish okay for breakfast? Here in America you dont see fish on the breakfast menu, but in some parts of Europe you do. We Americans also came from Europe...what stopped us from bringing the fish breakfast menus? I suppose the colonists only had room on the boat for non fish breakfast menus.
LOL, sorry. Sometimes the muse hits me.
(April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Emporion Wrote: Conclusion:
I find your random muse to be irrational and absurd in the realm of rationality. I urge you to rethink your random muse.
irrational? I openly admit that there is more than likely a chance that we will not understand everything. I openly admit there is a conflict between a THINKING person living inside an UNTHINKING cosmos. As far as rethinking. I do that alot. That is another part of the conflict of the human condition when introduced to a NON human cosmos. If you think you can convert me, or change me. Then by all means, I am a rational person as much as I try. I will not say if I am more rational than you or not. I say please, by all means, let me hear your argument.
This is all I have time to write today, so here you are.
I just found an error in my logic.
Here is my first reason theory:
Using emotion is okay as long as the previous reasoning chain is as the same length as the chain used to reason out the earlier decision.
series A =the first reasoning chain by reasonig with the left brain first and then the right brain
A sub 0-n=all of the actions done by series A
example:
only going to the movies for certain reasons
from B to (end of reasong chains) or arbitrarily C=when the action for the chain is different enought to move out of the a sequence
example:
not only going to the movies for certain reasons
"not" represents every series that is not series A and "certain reasons" represents all of the from B subs to (end of reasong chains) or arbitrarily C.
A reasoning chain abstractly is described as reasonig with the left brain first and then the right brain LAST.
Note: You have to accept the reasoning from the left brain first before you can go on the right brain. You have to accept the reasoning from the right brain before you can make the decision.
What do you think? How can I make it better in your opinion?
