Final Stage II

Re:mercedo's JE(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 0:16 (#12281902) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
Thank you very much for your reference. I needed some courage to write a JE about you. But I did so because I thought it benefits both of us, and I wrote another JE.
What matters is your postulation.
I think your latest response to me was as good as perfection, but with MH42, you are still struggling. My new JE was a comment about your comment on MH42's comment. Whichever your comments might be, your idea is basically similar, but sometimes you are OK, then sometimes I feel questionable. Till we get rid of our questions, I would like to keep on discussing.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 1:59 (#12283103) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
My views are basically similar to MH42, apart from your postulation our view with you is similar, but because you perceives things a little bit differently, superficially it looks different. Anyway...
But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is?
We don't necessarily have to be sure when we can say something, though we'd be sure, we are just unable to be sure.
By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut someone up for being politically/patriotically incorrect, lest their view "become reality".
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea. Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.
Why should a perception be wiser simply because it is shared?
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.
..Sorry Morosoph, Today I'm woking from 9:15 a.m. I need to take a rest now -almost 2:00 a.m., I will make a comment on the rest of your latter half the other day...
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.20 2:42 (#12283694) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, But I don't know that. Existance != knowledge.
you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea.I agree, but the problem here is hubris: the conviction that one's own perception is unflawed. I hold that perception is extremely flawed, and that the way to surer knowledge is in fact through greater care, care to catch the flaws that one is able to deduce, and care though knowledge of the existance of other potential flaws: the "unknown unknowns", if you like.
Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.I agree, but the real issue here is what one would be wise to believe oneself. What others believe, or the results of one's own investigations? What data should we act upon?
Practically, should we attempt to cure cancer with (only) prayer? Should those near death suffer, braindead, because some believe that the brain will regenerate itself out of nowhere? Should we allow the earth to go to pot for it is believed to hasten the second coming? When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
This isn't about diagnosing madness, it's about being sane oneself. And physical relativism risks undermining that. Naturally, you have the right to believe what you wish, but belief is not truth. If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.In terms of personal existance, historically believed concepts will serve you well. They do not save us from collective folly though. We consume more and more. We give birth to ever more offspring. We keep going to war, even though our weapons are so much more dangerous than those that shaped our evolution. We need to escape historical context to see this, to be able to do anything about the flow of human evolution.
And physical relativism doesn't help. Truth is no longer recognised as a motive, for everyone's motive is (their) 'truth'. Scientists may be free to say what they will, but doing so is useless, for the issue now isn't "how do we avoid disaster?", but "do you care about the environment?": a political preference that people will support for only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us. Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
If you haven't, you outght to read 1984. There, history changes on a daily basis. The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.22 2:21 (#12303843) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
but a diversity of opinion on the basis that we cannot be sure what reality is makes society more immune to bad (but 'fit') ideas.
"Shared reality == sanity" is what kills that natural resistance.
Maybe so, but physical relativism isn't going to fix that. In fact, it would make things worse: those in power would use the idea as leverage as to why people should believe their version. That each of us should be open to other possibilities isn't what they're going to deduce from it, instead, they'll slander those who are most concerned with physical truth in our society - scientists, much as already happens with decent journalists. Physical relativism will be used against your preferred ends, and much more powerfully than you would imagine.
I understand your idea basically, and it is not bad. You are taliking about your argument from idealistic point of view, at certain point of my younger days, I had time to feel as you did. But this current world is not as bad as you think. there are many good things as well as - intolerable things. So I would like to take a little bit more optimistic point of view than yours. I believe in human possibilities.
When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
And physical relativism risks undermining that.
If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us.
All correct. First of all, I was not meant to start challenging your idea. Everybody knows truth is much better than physical relativism. What I was pointing about was your postulation -from where you were taliking about. Your comments above were standing as the same point as mine. I can plainly agree with you almost all. Your postulation - sometimes you were taliking as if you were in a truth - as if you were able to exclude other than truth, that was what I was challenging. As long as we all keep on striving to gain an ideal society based on a scientifically verfiable truth, we all have no room to feel dubious for our effort.
Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
In order to realise a little bit better society, truth counts for something, but tolerance, whatever the characteristics along with it, counts for more than truth, that's my belief though... Your comment this time is splendid. Now we all share the same reality.
The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
I haven't read Orwell's at all but of course I know what his book is all about. Unfortunately it seems our society will have been heading for worse than that.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 23:36 (#12223044) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
The word "Objectivism" has more than one meaning.
I thought that I ought to clarify that I am no follower of Ayn Rand [slashdot.org].
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:59 (#12226708) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Good for you to do that- most certainly. Ayn Rand's form of objectivism is definately an extreme- such an extreme that her works are outside of reality for most of humanity. The libertarian party would do far better if they'd realize they were working in a different reality than the rest of us- and adjust their language appropriately.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]