Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We live in a society that is not open to new concepts.. do you agree? Is to morally wrong to be in a relationship where there is a huge age difference?

A women whos a teacher ends up having a relationship with a student, but waits till he graduates to take it public? Is that morally wrong?

Is it acceptable or do you find it gross in pervert territory?

What are your thoughts?

Lets take the same situation but with a gay couple... is that morally wrong?

In ancient Greece men use to have their wives then their mistress, then their slave boy.. Was that morally wrong? Who calls the rules to society and now that people are more open to their sexuality is it wrong to judge?

Originally posted by rudester
Is to morally wrong

Originally posted by rudester
Is that morally wrong?


Originally posted by rudester

Is it acceptable

Originally posted by rudester
is that morally wrong?


Originally posted by rudester

Was that morally wrong?

Originally posted by rudester
is it wrong to judge?

Originally posted by rudester
Who calls the rules to society

I guess it all comes down to - what informs your morality?

For most people its just what they think is right - for all their intellectual babble, that's all it really is. For some others they subscribe to "societal values" of their period. Fortunately or unfortunately, that means society is shaped by the popular opinion - moral or immoral. Whatever way determines your relative moral compass, it is fragile at its foundations.

So again - what informs your morality?

I think that's probably less true for atheists than it is for believers, who have it is easy in finding an absolute source of morality, at least on certain issues.

Really, I think moral relativism's a bit of a lazy response to ethical questions. It's avoiding trying to find the difficult answers, and frankly feels entirely counter-intuitive to how humans function. No one can actually live in a way in which they are really tolerant of all ethical viewpoints, and there's no point in trying. I still find it female circumcision, or genocide, or whatever, wholly reprehensible even if another culture could justify those from their own cultural perspective.

As to the question: why on Earth would it be wrong, as long as both participants can fully consent, and the relationship isn't exploitative. Adults have to be trusted to be able to make their own mature choices in terms of who they have a relationship with- otherwise you're veering into quite sinister, authoritarian territory.

A relationship with a student or sex slave is very much morally wrong because of the inherent exploitation involved, the second more than the first.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
as long as both participants can fully consent, and the relationship isn't exploitative. Adults have to be trusted to be able to make their own mature choices in terms of who they have a relationship with- otherwise you're veering into quite sinister, authoritarian territory.

Age disparity in sexual relationships refers to sexual relations between people with a significant difference in age. older men often seek younger women. Older women sometimes date younger men as well, and in both cases wealth and physical attractiveness are often relevant.

I tend to agree with you on this, unless both parties and they dont have to face the age of consent, then they have nothing to worry about.

Society does have definite lines as to what's deemed moral through media television, the way a family is portrayed. It is in are nature to to be carried away by fantasy and desire; this is the driving force as to why we engage into an adventurous romance. It is when we face religion that it's deemed as wrong, but I guess its different for every culture; where you often hear of little girls being married to old men.

When we do see weird couples we tend to laugh and take it comically or frown down at what's not desirable.

The term for males is called, Pederasty or Paederasty. Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. The status of pederasty has changed over the course of history, at times considered an ideal and at other times a crime; due to child abuse issues.

Females are called Cougar Woman, and
within recent years the term cougar women and the cougar women trend has become somewhat of a phenomenon. Older women find that younger men have more energy and drive than most men their age, and that their 'zeal' for life is intoxicating because it parallels theirs.

When middle-aged women reach a certain point in their life, many of them start to feel an underlying sense of renewal that makes them want to be adventurous and young-spirited once again.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
I think that's probably less true for atheists than it is for believers, who have it is easy in finding an absolute source of morality, at least on certain issues.

I find it easier to answer ethical questions as an atheist than when I was religious. I no longer have to weigh what seems intrinsically right to me with what is prescribed by my chosen religion. Your opinion takes a lopsided view of how people arrive at a moral conclusion.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
Really, I think moral relativism's a bit of a lazy response to ethical questions. It's avoiding trying to find the difficult answers, and frankly feels entirely counter-intuitive to how humans function.

Or it's admitting that we don't have a clear-cut answer in all situations. Claiming an answer when no sufficient one exists is just another form of ignorance.

But many reasonable stances are counter-intuitive to how humans function, so I agree there.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
No one can actually live in a way in which they are really tolerant of all ethical viewpoints, and there's no point in trying.

That's not moral relativism at all.

You know what's awesome? Moral nihilism.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You know what's awesome? Moral nihilism.

I think this sounds more like what ArabianDrums was describing moral relativism as.

You might actually be able to justify moral nihilism without sounding fatalistic, emo, satanic, etc. by appealing to a wholistic or reincarnating universe. I'm thinking specifically on some of the more all-encompassing teachings of Taoism. Though I don't think even most Taoists would go this far if pressed.

I justify moral nihilism via existential nihilism. Life is very simple and straight forward with those two.

Morals manifest the ten worlds. Couldn't be simpler...

Originally posted by rudester
We live in a society that is not open to new concepts.. do you agree? Is to morally wrong to be in a relationship where there is a huge age difference?

A women whos a teacher ends up having a relationship with a student, but waits till he graduates to take it public? Is that morally wrong?

Is it acceptable or do you find it gross in pervert territory?

What are your thoughts?

Lets take the same situation but with a gay couple... is that morally wrong?

In ancient Greece men use to have their wives then their mistress, then their slave boy.. Was that morally wrong? Who calls the rules to society and now that people are more open to their sexuality is it wrong to judge?

Disgusting.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I justify moral nihilism via existential nihilism. Life is very simple and straight forward with those two.

Fair enough, it's a valid philosophical outlook. However, most don't determine such outlooks based on how straightforward something is.

I wonder...


WHEN we create virtually immortal sentient consciousness, will things like existential nihilism still hold? At that point, a person with near infinite life-span would HAVE to find meaning. Even if that meaning is that they should not focus on any meaning???


That does play into our morals. I think we will need to closely look into our morals as we explore technology more. Morals all seem relative. I watched a speech from a particularly compelling atheist that morals can be objective. But he ended up making too many logical fallacies: makes me wish he was right, though.

A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student.

Originally posted by BackFire
A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student.


pained

Originally posted by dadudemon
WHEN we create virtually immortal sentient consciousness, will things like existential nihilism still hold? At that point, a person with near infinite life-span would HAVE to find meaning. Even if that meaning is that they should not focus on any meaning???

Existential nihilism doesn't claim that one should not or cannot find meaning in life, though, only that there is not intrinsic meaning. Inventing a meaning of your own is perfectly consistent with that idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Existential nihilism doesn't claim that one should not or cannot find meaning in life, though, only that there is not intrinsic meaning. Inventing a meaning of your own is perfectly consistent with that idea.

The problem is not that I do not know what existential nihilism is. You misunderstood the implications of my post.

Because an immortal sentient consciousness will live, basically, forever, existential nihilism would not be a valid philosophical approach. Mostly because I think so but partly because it would be an eternity of no point for that sentient consciousness. Meaning would have to be created in order to justify any sort of existence. This is a different problem compared to a temporal being: the eternal being has not choice but to justify existence or cease to exist. Mortal beings have not choice in the matter.

Additionally, a conscious and sentient being would most likely create a reason for existence. Lastly, and this is the most important reason, philosophically, for why an eternal being would not be able to be existentially nihilistic: they would make an impact on the "point of existence" with an eternity to do so. An infinite amount of time creates an infinite amount of opportunity and probability that the point of existence (objectively) is influenced.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The problem is not that I do not know what existential nihilism is. You misunderstood the implications of my post.

Because an immortal sentient consciousness will live, basically, forever, existential nihilism would not be a valid philosophical approach. Mostly because I think so but partly because it would be an eternity of no point for that sentient consciousness. Meaning would have to be created in order to justify any sort of existence. This is a different problem compared to a temporal being: the eternal being has not choice but to justify existence or cease to exist. Mortal beings have not choice in the matter.

Additionally, a conscious and sentient being would most likely create a reason for existence. Lastly, and this is the most important reason, philosophically, for why an eternal being would not be able to be existentially nihilistic: they would make an impact on the "point of existence" with an eternity to do so. An infinite amount of time creates an infinite amount of opportunity and probability that the point of existence (objectively) is influenced. Isn't that what existential nihilism is? Regardless of whether or not an immortal entity creates its own reason, there was not inherent reason to begin with, and simply designing one yourself doesn't change that. People (and future things, apparently) have been coming up with their own reasons forever--just because the type of person (thing) that's doing the creating has an eternal lifespan, doesn't change the philosophy's defining viewpoint: no inherent (eternal/cosmic/divine), objective meaning.


The most the AI could do is come up with a separate philosophy or switch to a more comforting one--which is exactly what a human would do. And is that your question? That an AI would do that for the sake of comfort?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Isn't that what existential nihilism is? Regardless of whether or not an immortal entity creates its own reason, there was not inherent reason to begin with, and simply designing one yourself doesn't change that. People (and future things, apparently) have been coming up with their own reasons forever--just because the type of person (thing) that's doing the creating has an eternal lifespan, doesn't change the philosophy's defining viewpoint: no inherent (eternal/cosmic/divine), objective meaning.

I thought the most basic point of existential nihilism is there is no meaning to life other than the subjective small meanings you give it because you cannot change, objective (big, "O", the point of existence.

If you can live for eternity, then you can literally change the objective point of existence.

Yes, I am referring to a transcendent objective meaning of existence: not a localized individual one.


Eternity is quite a bit of time.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The most the AI could do is come up with a separate philosophy or switch to a more comforting one--which is exactly what a human would do. And is that your question? That an AI would do that for the sake of comfort?

I disagree: with an infinite amount of time, the universe could be transcended for all we can account. Transcended into an objective truth or existence. Eliminating the entire point of existential nihilism.

You're thinking too limited about existence. With eternity, you could potentially become a god with a capital G. Existential nihilism loses it's sting/purpose when you consider an infinite lifespan, imo. Also, it doesn't just have to be an AI. It could be the old school archaic transcending of the spirit. Or a technological boost to the mind. Or biological immortality. Or brain uploading and then conquering of entropy.

That's assuming that such transcendence will happen. Assuming it doesn't (which is my outlook), and heat death pushes our AI (or immortal human) in to black holes and photons, what will it have to work with other than switching philosophies or making up its own subjective purpose?


Assuming it survives long enough to do so.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's assuming that such transcendence will happen. Assuming it doesn't (which is my outlook), and heat death pushes our AI (or immortal human) in to black holes and photons, what will it have to work with other than switching philosophies or making up its own subjective purpose?


Assuming it survives long enough to do so.

I'd say the critical issue is "How do you alter the fundamental meaning of existence?" Can that be done? That's a metaphysical concept. Simply being immortal doesn't give you the power to change that, neither does great intelligence or advanced technology.

I feel like it could be true but there are a lot of steps missing between "immortal" and "able to alter metaphysical facts". The fact that eternity is a long time seems like an insufficient argument.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's assuming that such transcendence will happen. Assuming it doesn't (which is my outlook), and heat death pushes our AI (or immortal human) in to black holes and photons, what will it have to work with other than switching philosophies or making up its own subjective purpose?

I fully agree except that I think it is still possible to transcend. I do not know for sure, of course.

There may not be an objective truth out there for us ever to discover. Maybe we cannot ever know that objective truth due to our limited consciousness (so we create an AI that can...er something). Maybe we already DID transcend and we cannot be objectively aware of such a state. There are too many unknowns so I cannot conclude that godlike transcendence is not possible. It would be awesome, for sure. lol


So back to the topic: it is all relative when it comes to morals. Unless we transcend into a literal metaphysical mind state of objective truth, we cannot know.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Assuming it survives long enough to do so.

Even biological immortality: if you could live for 100 billion years, perfect you memory, and improve your psyche to cope with such a long life, surely you think you could transcend. That's quite a long time of discovery. At what point would you be able to focus hundreds of millions of years to pure spiritual philosophy? At what point could you transcend? The universe will still be around and there will be plenty of "life giving" star systems to visit or live in. At what point could you transcend your biology? To me, it seems the probabilities are very high. I assume it has already happened in this universe, alone. I assume it has happened a near infinite number of times in the universe. I cannot know for sure, but it seems like something like that would occur. Sounds Buddhist, I know.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that eternity is a long time seems like an insufficient argument.

The fact that eternity is an infinite amount of time seems like more than a sufficient argument and there are probably multiple levels of transcendence that could be experienced during that supposed time. At a certain point, time would lose meaning or no longer occur to the individual. Maybe?

It seems the argument against it is insufficient because he supposes omniscience to know what would not happen during the that infinite time period.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I fully agree except that I think it is still possible to transcend. I do not know for sure, of course.

There may not be an objective truth out there for us ever to discover. Maybe we cannot ever know that objective truth due to our limited consciousness (so we create an AI that can...er something). Maybe we already DID transcend and we cannot be objectively aware of such a state. There are too many unknowns so I cannot conclude that godlike transcendence is not possible. It would be awesome, for sure. lol


So back to the topic: it is all relative when it comes to morals. Unless we transcend into a literal metaphysical mind state of objective truth, we cannot know. Without getting in to a discussion of metaphysics, I like things that are observable, quantifiable, and consistent. We could say that everything is relative, but frankly I hate that route--feels like a cop out. The concept of 'morality', an inherent, universal right and wrong, is nothing more than a elaborate (and somehow simplistic) explanation for personal 'preference'.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Even biological immortality: if you could live for 100 billion years, perfect you memory, and improve your psyche to cope with such a long life, surely you think you could transcend. That's quite a long time of discovery. At what point would you be able to focus hundreds of millions of years to pure spiritual philosophy? At what point could you transcend? The universe will still be around and there will be plenty of "life giving" star systems to visit or live in. At what point could you transcend your biology? To me, it seems the probabilities are very high. I assume it has already happened in this universe, alone. I assume it has happened a near infinite number of times in the universe. I cannot know for sure, but it seems like something like that would occur. Sounds Buddhist, I know. Sounds optimistic.

I prefer to think in terms of 100s of trillions of years. Whereby any knowledge, wisdom, understanding, or 'transcendence' is slowly and steadily ripped apart until heat death. With nothing left within the universe able to exist bigger than a photon, any purpose a consciousness may have come in to would have been eliminated with the destruction of the consciousness itself. And even during the stage where a 100 billion year old consciousness full of all the knowledge the universe can give thinks it can transcend, or even does, its achievement is little more than a personal shift in perspective or nature. A very human, mortal thing to do.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Without getting in to a discussion of metaphysics, I like things that are observable, quantifiable, and consistent. We could say that everything is relative, but frankly I hate that route--feels like a cop out. The concept of 'morality', an inherent, universal right and wrong, is nothing more than a elaborate (and somehow simplistic) explanation for personal 'preference'.

Well, things really are relative because there is not "real" objective truth out there that we know of besides concept based things...like God.



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds optimistic.

I actually meant "multiverse" not "universe". lol In this universe? The universe is not old enough, imo, to have experienced a true "godlike" transcendence. We also do not know if there is an objective truth "state" to even experience, anyway.

That was my bad on using "universe" instead of multiverse. It is mistakes like those that can make nerds rage for hours.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I prefer to think in terms of 100s of trillions of years. Whereby any knowledge, wisdom, understanding, or 'transcendence' is slowly and steadily ripped apart until heat death. With nothing left within the universe able to exist bigger than a photon, any purpose a consciousness may have come in to would have been eliminated with the destruction of the consciousness itself. And even during the stage where a 100 billion year old consciousness full of all the knowledge the universe can give thinks it can transcend, or even does, its achievement is little more than a personal shift in perspective or nature. A very human, mortal thing to do.

I think a quark would be the smallest "matter" form. Photons can occupy the same space as each other.

But my thing about that transcendence, even for 100 billion years, is a godlike state. Time loses meaning and our mind can control things around us. With technology, I think 100 billion years is well more than enough time for a universe to create virtual gods.


I think we should redefine. The definition of what it means to transcend should be the moment that entropy loses its sting. Higher states of godhood could be controlling the laws of physics, itself (entropy not a law, necessarily).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, things really are relative because there is not "real" objective truth out there that we know of besides concept based things...like God. See that's what I don't like getting in to. I've had enough conversations with people who wind up saying something like "Well the laws of physics are all relative, anyways." And that's a really annoying turn for a conversation to take, especially since most of them are about real-world applications of what we currently know to exist, AKA 'truths'.



Originally posted by dadudemon
I actually meant "multiverse" not "universe". lol In this universe? The universe is not old enough, imo, to have experienced a true "godlike" transcendence. We also do not know if there is an objective truth "state" to even experience, anyway.

That was my bad on using "universe" instead of multiverse. It is mistakes like those that can make nerds rage for hours. Exactly, at this point it's all fiction and hypothetical predictions. It's fun to pontificate that stuff, but in terms of real-world, current applications, I prefer the here-and-now of what's observable and quantifiable.



Originally posted by dadudemon
I think a quark would be the smallest "matter" form. Photons can occupy the same space as each other.I knew it was a funny sounding word. Thanks, that was actually bugging me for a bit.


Originally posted by dadudemon
But my thing about that transcendence, even for 100 billion years, is a godlike state. Time loses meaning and our mind can control things around us. With technology, I think 100 billion years is well more than enough time for a universe to create virtual gods.


I think we should redefine. The definition of what it means to transcend should be the moment that entropy loses its sting. Higher states of godhood could be controlling the laws of physics, itself (entropy not a law, necessarily). My point about moral and existential nihilism is that, regardless of the state of being, it's the being itself who will always define morality and purpose. Even a God with the trifecta of omnis would be giving itself purpose. The multi/universe would only have a purpose or a sense of right and wrong, because an entity is saying it does. Those things are internally created, abstract concepts that are purposefully (ha) designed to fit an individual's experiences. Once every consciousness capable of creating morality/purpose dies, the concepts die with them, they don't become embedded or hardwired in to the fabric of existence for others to detect. They're the vicarious products of the universe, but they don't define or necessitate the universe.


Claiming morality and purpose exist is the exact same as claiming that God exists. Or that the universe doesn't. It's a fun, philosophical topic, but as a "fact" that will determine choices and actions, laws and punishment, policy and execution... it's mind-boggling that people actually do do that.

And remember, I say all that because that is what I have experienced to be 'true'. And I base my perception of what I currently see in the universe based on my experiences. Not on what I think could happen, or on what I prefer to be true.

Originally posted by BackFire
A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student. You are truly the best mod on this site.

I demand Backfire for admin.

Also: I think being in a relationship is only morally "wrong" if said student is physically and emotionally under-developed, and/or if the teacher is giving explicit preferential treatment towards them as a teacher. While I believe that, in terms of the latter case, some teachers would have the strength of will to have a relationship with a student, the rules against it do exist for a reason.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
See that's what I don't like getting in to. I've had enough conversations with people who wind up saying something like "Well the laws of physics are all relative, anyways." And that's a really annoying turn for a conversation to take, especially since most of them are about real-world applications of what we currently know to exist, AKA 'truths'.

But the physics are seemingly arbitrary. They are relative to no frame but each other. The only way to get around this is metaphysically by invoking God.



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My point about moral and existential nihilism is that, regardless of the state of being, it's the being itself who will always define morality and purpose. Even a God with the trifecta of omnis would be giving itself purpose. The multi/universe would only have a purpose or a sense of right and wrong, because an entity is saying it does. Those things are internally created, abstract concepts that are purposefully (ha) designed to fit an individual's experiences. Once every consciousness capable of creating morality/purpose dies, the concepts die with them, they don't become embedded or hardwired in to the fabric of existence for others to detect. They're the vicarious products of the universe, but they don't define or necessitate the universe.

No, by invoking "God", you invoke something outside of time and space by is also part of it. This is why it is the "objective" answer. It is not relative at all for such a concept. This entity has infinite magnitude, power, and consciousness. It is unbounded. If an objective truth comes from such a concept, it, by definition, cannot be relative or bounded by a degree of comparison: it would be absolute (this is also why people ignorantly appeal to "god" for a moral absolute: they are simply piggy-backing onto the philosophical constructs of great minds from the past without realizing it). This is why philosophers have been going back to a concept of god for maybe even thousands of years. It is also the bane of many philosophers because it can be seen as a cop-out and/or lazy way of just ending an infinite loop of "logic".

And if a person, being born in a universe bounded by time, transcends the shackles of time and space, that person ceases to have any sort of "relative" and subjective view. In other words, philosophically, there is an end to how broadly you can paint with existential nihilism.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Claiming morality and purpose exist is the exact same as claiming that God exists. Or that the universe doesn't. It's a fun, philosophical topic, but as a "fact" that will determine choices and actions, laws and punishment, policy and execution... it's mind-boggling that people actually do do that.

None of it is mind-boggling: it is a natural outgrowth of a violent and sometimes selfish sentient species. Sometimes, we may be invoking God correctly with an objective truth (but we cannot know that the truth is objective...and I would posit that it immediately ceases to be truly objective the instant it parts God's consciousness and touches man's mind...making any real objective truth polluted and diluted). It is also possible that we have never had any form of objective truth, ever...even watered down O-truths.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And remember, I say all that because that is what I have experienced to be 'true'. And I base my perception of what I currently see in the universe based on my experiences. Not on what I think could happen, or on what I prefer to be true.

Well, if we go by those "measures", which I do not like to, multiple Gods exists and miracles happen all the time. That's not really a universe I would want to entertain. Your experiences are instantly suspect because they are subjective. So you can't even trust what you feel is your experience to measure truth. You can only postulate.

This is why people have turned to empiricism. It is a set of philosophical rules that they feel comfortable with and work quite well for our subjective experience. Sure, science is awesome and we can do a crap ton with it (maybe even bridge the gap between physical and metaphysical) but we do not to take a step back and realize that it is just another type of philosophy.

I noticed you put "true" in quotes, after reading your post a second time. Then the two paragraphs above are actually unnecessary because you already knew all that. *le sigh*

Originally posted by dadudemon
The fact that eternity is an infinite amount of time seems like more than a sufficient argument and there are probably multiple levels of transcendence that could be experienced during that supposed time. At a certain point, time would lose meaning or no longer occur to the individual. Maybe?

It seems the argument against it is insufficient because he supposes omniscience to know what would not happen during the that infinite time period.

Say we accept that given an infinite amount of time anything possible will be done, which is the best you can really get as an axiom here. You still need to prove that changing metaphysical reality is a thing it is possible to do. If the universe is an existential nihilist one to start with then this is sort of like saying that the immortal can make square circles.

I just want to know what the justification for such a power is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Say we accept that given an infinite amount of time anything possible will be done, which is the best you can really get as an axiom here. You still need to prove that changing metaphysical reality is a thing it is possible to do. If the universe is an existential nihilist one to start with then this is sort of like saying that the immortal can make square circles.

I just want to know what the justification for such a power is.

No, you have it wrong. I only assert the obvious: with an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of "things" are possible.

You need to prove that the "metaphysical" is immutable. It is up to you to prove something is permanent like you want it to be. I cannot prove anything beyond there being an infinite number of possibilities. That should automatically make you take a step back and realize you're wrong. But good luck disproving an infinite number of things. I will be dead long before you reach any realistic conclusions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you have it wrong. I only assert the obvious: with an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of "things" are possible. I think this is the crux of y'all's disagreement, but I'm not 100% sure I'm interpreting this statement correctly.
It would seem to me that even with an infinite amount of time, all you get is the ability to do a finite number of things an infinite number of times, i.e. it doesn't make the impossible possible, so much as allows you to (literally) endlessly repeat that which is already possible.
However, I haven't closely examined this position, so I freely admit there might be large holes in it

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you have it wrong. I only assert the obvious: with an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of "things" are possible.

A professor once told me the first thing to look for in an argument that doesn't make sense to you is the word "obvious". Do you accept that there are impossible actions?

For example: If you have an infinite plane that only contains circles even if you search forever you cannot find a triangle. That kind of thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You need to prove that the "metaphysical" is immutable.

I only assert the obvious

Can your immortal make square circles? Do you feel that is a fair comparison? If the metaphysical can be altered then this immortal can alter logic and truth (actually I think you are literally arguing that it can alter truth).

no more than a 10 year diff

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A professor once told me the first thing to look for in an argument that doesn't make sense to you is the word "obvious".

And old professor once told me that a person who avoids an obvious argument against their position is just trying to save face and has nothing of actual substance to bring to the debate. He said to ignore and enjoy that you have won the debate.

Oh, and he said not to text while driving. He hated that.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you accept that there are impossible actions?

Define "impossible". Define "actions". Define "accept."

Then I can answer your question, philosophically.

If you want a lay answer, yes, there are impossible actions. But you are obviously not wanting a temporal, mortal human based answer. So, from there, you must set your definitions and boundaries before I can legitimately answer your question.

Superficially, it seems like a word game. But a close inspection of your actual question requires absurd amount of explanation. Your question is very similar to, philosophically, to "Is there a God?"



BUT! To directly answer your question, yes, there are impossible actions. For instance, I cannot, at this very moment, jump 100 meters into the air. I cannot be absolutely certain of this, of course, but I am almost positive that I cannot do that. For me, it seems like an impossible action at this very moment.


What if 50 years down the road I become an augment and can perform such feats with ease? I cannot assert that or the negation of that.


Translate that to the topic.

Now enjoy the fact that you had your answer from me before you even asked it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For example: If you have an infinite plane that only contains circles even if you search forever you cannot find a triangle. That kind of thing.

Wrong: you can make triangles with circles. This is a definition game, not an actual question. Word games have no place in this type of discussion. That's amateur philosophy, not an actual substantive approach.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I only assert the obvious

Can your immortal make square circles? Do you feel that is a fair comparison? If the metaphysical can be altered then this immortal can alter logic and truth (actually I think you are literally arguing that it can alter truth).


You're trying to draw a philosophical parallel of a clear unknown to a negative truism.




So, basically, your arguments boil down to linguistic paradoxes that you'd run into in highschool. Cool.



To answer your question, I would have to have an quite an intelligent mind. A mind that would seem omniscient to someone like you and I. I cannot know nor can I deduce with my limited intellect that an immortal being, who had mastered entropy and can live forever, can make square circles at some point in an infinite life-span. It is quite obvious that such a being would be able to do whatever you can think of: including executing paradoxes. If you assert the opposite, justify why. I only assert that it is possible with an infinite number of possibilities in front of us.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But the physics are seemingly arbitrary. They are relative to no frame but each other. The only way to get around this is metaphysically by invoking God.Another cop-out. We want an origin for them, but damn it all if we can find one without submitting to the Laws we're trying to trace. Like a dog chasing his tail, we can't detach ourselves.






Yet...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, by invoking "God", you invoke something outside of time and space by is also part of it. This is why it is the "objective" answer. It is not relative at all for such a concept. This entity has infinite magnitude, power, and consciousness. It is unbounded. If an objective truth comes from such a concept, it, by definition, cannot be relative or bounded by a degree of comparison: it would be absolute (this is also why people ignorantly appeal to "god" for a moral absolute: they are simply piggy-backing onto the philosophical constructs of great minds from the past without realizing it). This is why philosophers have been going back to a concept of god for maybe even thousands of years. It is also the bane of many philosophers because it can be seen as a cop-out and/or lazy way of just ending an infinite loop of "logic".

And if a person, being born in a universe bounded by time, transcends the shackles of time and space, that person ceases to have any sort of "relative" and subjective view. In other words, philosophically, there is an end to how broadly you can paint with existential nihilism. I understand the use of the "god factor" in a situation like this. Invoking that concept is easy, quick. Simplistic. But I don't know how to comprehend such a thing. I can imagine it, yes. Imagine it and call it an answer. But if that's all that matters, then may as well just stick with Jesus, or something.

I need it verified. And within human ability, I can't verify morality or purpose. I can imagine them. But that's it.

And the problem I have with the "god answer" is that I also don't know how to see god as... uh, ultimate, I guess. Even if it commanded with total power over the multiverse and everything beyond, I still don't know how to see it without limitations. And this gets in to the religious debate, but even without an individual entity to focus on, I still can't grasp it. "The universe has an inherent purpose and value." As evidenced by whom, or what? "Morality is a universal constant." Same question(?) Any answer that attempts at a source for these things opens up the "And where did this source gain its morality/purpose/source/authority/power etc?" And it just goes on and on like an eternal Russian doll.

It's an unsatisfying and baseless answer to me, and to settle the original moral-purpose quandary, I've settled on the "They're not really there." approach of nihilism. It's all that makes sense to me. Though, fingers-crossed for a universe-shaking revelation one day.

Originally posted by dadudemon
None of it is mind-boggling: it is a natural outgrowth of a violent and sometimes selfish sentient species. Sometimes, we may be invoking God correctly with an objective truth (but we cannot know that the truth is objective...and I would posit that it immediately ceases to be truly objective the instant it parts God's consciousness and touches man's mind...making any real objective truth polluted and diluted). It is also possible that we have never had any form of objective truth, ever...even watered down O-truths. Sorry, it's mind-boggling for me. I've never really been able to understand people who follow what I see as creations of their imaginations as far they do (morality, divinity, purpose). It's my foible, not being able to "get it". I try to explain, as I am now, that what they perceive as 'truths' or 'facts', comes off to me as elaborate explanations for preferences and fanciful imaginings.


And saying that, I can safely say that this is still completely relevant to the OP's question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if we go by those "measures", which I do not like to, multiple Gods exists and miracles happen all the time. That's not really a universe I would want to entertain. Your experiences are instantly suspect because they are subjective. So you can't even trust what you feel is your experience to measure truth. You can only postulate.

This is why people have turned to empiricism. It is a set of philosophical rules that they feel comfortable with and work quite well for our subjective experience. Sure, science is awesome and we can do a crap ton with it (maybe even bridge the gap between physical and metaphysical) but we do not to take a step back and realize that it is just another type of philosophy.

I noticed you put "true" in quotes, after reading your post a second time. Then the two paragraphs above are actually unnecessary because you already knew all that. *le sigh* Ah, I enjoy reading 'em anyway.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Another cop-out. We want an origin for them, but damn it all if we can find one without submitting to the Laws we're trying to trace. Like a dog chasing his tail, we can't detach ourselves.

I wouldn't say origin because that might imply time. More like a reason for "why".

Some say it is randomly generated in an infinite pool of universes. Cool. Where did the set of rules come from that said it would be randomly generated? SUNUVA BIIIIIITCH! Never ends.






Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yet...

I understand the use of the "god factor" in a situation like this. Invoking that concept is easy, quick. Simplistic. But I don't know how to comprehend such a thing. I can imagine it, yes. Imagine it and call it an answer. But if that's all that matters, then may as well just stick with Jesus, or something.

I need it verified. And within human ability, I can't verify morality or purpose. I can imagine them. But that's it.

And the problem I have with the "god answer" is that I also don't know how to see god as... uh, ultimate, I guess. Even if it commanded with total power over the multiverse and everything beyond, I still don't know how to see it without limitations. And this gets in to the religious debate, but even without an individual entity to focus on, I still can't grasp it. "The universe has an inherent purpose and value." As evidenced by whom, or what? "Morality is a universal constant." Same question(?) Any answer that attempts at a source for these things opens up the "And where did this source gain its morality/purpose/source/authority/power etc?" And it just goes on and on like an eternal Russian doll.

It's an unsatisfying and baseless answer to me, and to settle the original moral-purpose quandary, I've settled on the "They're not really there." approach of nihilism. It's all that makes sense to me. Though, fingers-crossed for a universe-shaking revelation one day.


Dude, I totally agree with everything you just stated. Even the last part where you're still looking for some sort of enlightenment. Most of the time, I conduct my life as if there is nothing metaphysical or transcendent about my perceived reality. Every now and then, something makes me pay attention just a tad more. My problem with the metaphysical has always been the faith factor: I hate it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sorry, it's mind-boggling for me. I've never really been able to understand people who follow what I see as creations of their imaginations as far they do (morality, divinity, purpose). It's my foible, not being able to "get it". I try to explain, as I am now, that what they perceive as 'truths' or 'facts', comes off to me as elaborate explanations for preferences and fanciful imaginings.


And saying that, I can safely say that this is still completely relevant to the OP's question.

I apologize: I did not intend to belittle your position about the "boggliness" (don't know what word to use, there) of the concept. I was only drawing your attention to potentials truths that you were already aware: humans are devious bastards and even if some of holy writ is objective truth based, it is still ruined. Obviously, you are already aware of that. Am I right?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ah, I enjoy reading 'em anyway.

Indeed: I like reading your posts, as well.

Originally posted by BackFire
A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student.

Whore.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wouldn't say origin because that might imply time. More like a reason for "why".

Some say it is randomly generated in an infinite pool of universes. Cool. Where did the set of rules come from that said it would be randomly generated? SUNUVA BIIIIIITCH! Never ends. I had a Russian doll as a kid. Scared the f*ck out of me. Did it really end?!






Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, I totally agree with everything you just stated. Even the last part where you're still looking for some sort of enlightenment. Most of the time, I conduct my life as if there is nothing metaphysical or transcendent about my perceived reality. Every now and then, something makes me pay attention just a tad more. My problem with the metaphysical has always been the faith factor: I hate it. That's why Chris Hitchens quip on faith is my profile's top listed. To "surrender reason" is madness.



Originally posted by dadudemon
I apologize: I did not intend to belittle your position about the "boggliness" (don't know what word to use, there) of the concept. I was only drawing your attention to potentials truths that you were already aware: humans are devious bastards and even if some of holy writ is objective truth based, it is still ruined. Obviously, you are already aware of that. Am I right? Oh yeah. God can prove and claim what he wants, but if he/she/it wants to be seen as ultimate, he needs to take away our ability to conceive of anything greater. God has to work around us. I love it.




Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed: I like reading your posts, as well. Bro hug.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's why Chris Hitchens quip on faith is my profile's top listed. To "surrender reason" is madness.

Well, like I talked about with Digi, everything is faith-based. Everything requires faith down to the very last fundemental force of physics. Drawing a line at "faith" as it applies to just the metaphysical is not an honest position. Hitchens is/was a dude I loved listening to. However, one thing I always thought was intellectually dishonest was "lol! You use faith?" Everyone does. The only lines drawn are ones of arbitrariness.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh yeah. God can prove and claim what he wants, but if he/she/it wants to be seen as ultimate, he needs to take away our ability to conceive of anything greater. God has to work around us. I love it.

Why does God need to prove that? What is proof? At the base of it all...would any amount of proof actually do anything? I posit, no. Why? Because we lack omniscience, ourselves, so there is no amount of proof that would be adequate enough unless we were godlike, already. This is why "proof of God" is always troublesome in philosophy.

Once we tackle that question, then we can move onto the meat of the topic: morality. If we cannot solve the God portion of morality, then there is no solution to this thread other than "all morals are subjective and no true objective morals exist"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bro hug.

That's gay. uhuh


*tummy sticks*

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, like I talked about with Digi, everything is faith-based. Everything requires faith down to the very last fundemental force of physics. Drawing a line at "faith" as it applies to just the metaphysical is not an honest position. Hitchens is/was a dude I loved listening to. However, one thing I always thought was intellectually dishonest was "lol! You use faith?" Everyone does. The only lines drawn are ones of arbitrariness. I prefer having faith in things that can be proven, if I press the issue. Like, really press. Faith in things with a tangible, identifiable effect. It's why I have faith that radar waves are real, but feng shui isn't.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Why does God need to prove that? What is proof? At the base of it all...would any amount of proof actually do anything? I posit, no. Why? Because we lack omniscience, ourselves, so there is no amount of proof that would be adequate enough unless we were godlike, already. This is why "proof of God" is always troublesome in philosophy.

Once we tackle that question, then we can move onto the meat of the topic: morality. If we cannot solve the God portion of morality, then there is no solution to this thread other than "all morals are subjective and no true objective morals exist" I like that last line. It is the template to the answer of every moral quandary. Bear with me here as I attempt to summarize my viewpoint on why morality's such a b*tch:


Morality is the name applied to the subjective preferences of individuals. People prefer what benefits them on some level or another, and defining your morality is all about defining what pleases you psychologically. Moral=beneficial. Immoral=detrimental. The only argument I've heard that attempts to solidify morality as a genuine, objective, incontrovertible, universal constant is where a deity is invoked. They can't prove morality, so they bring in a god that can also not be proven (nor disproven). It is beyond our abilities to provide a shred of evidence for Universal Morality, or Universal Purpose, or God. But there is a ton of evidence to prove your own preferences.


I know you're about to echo the "what is proof/knowledge" view. But my subscription to Nihilism Weekly ends with the Existential and Moral editions. I've never found there's any practical application in the rest. The issue of 'what is reality', 'is knowledge real' and the like are questions whose answers travel in endless circles. They ask a lot, but none of it can be proven--including the demand that existence of proof be proven (I shit you not, I've been asked to do that by one very priggish college kid). I've been at the receiving end of enough "Well what is knowledge, anyway. How can you prove that what you know exists." Someone demanding a piece of specific knowledge that will prove all knowledge exists. A paradox. An endless circle of answer-counter-answer-counter. The query inside a solution inside a query, like an eternal Russian doll. Whatever we learn about reality can (and always is) rebuffed with a further demand that said explanation is indeed within reality. Useless arguments. And I'm not making a jab at you, by the way, but rather at those who think epistemological and metaphysical statements prove their point. Which is ironic, considering their stance on the nature of "proof".


I said before that my behaviour and choices in life are based off of what I experience. I have never experienced what I just phrased as "genuine, objective, incontrovertible, Universal Morality". Nor have I experienced Purpose. Nor God. But I have experienced (and witnessed) subjective preferences. And I have experienced (been given a lecture on) why that person's preference is more important to him (her) than anyone else's preference. I have experienced (debated on) why execution is moral to someone, and immoral to another. Same with wars, drugs, piracy, theft, fraud, name-calling, lying, sweeping things under the rug (metaphorically), and any variable of any issue under the sun. So many opinions on so many kinds of issues--all of them about whether something is morally wrong or not. Subjective preferences galore, but not a whit of objective morality to be found.

Ditto for Purpose. And God.




I... think that's all I have to say on it. I think... Can't quite seem to scoop up any more.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's gay. uhuh


*tummy sticks* Pff, typical Chazz.

Originally posted by Tex
Whore.

You've been away for so long. What do you expect?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I prefer having faith in things that can be proven, if I press the issue. Like, really press. Faith in things with a tangible, identifiable effect. It's why I have faith that radar waves are real, but feng shui isn't.

Here's the problem with that: you have faith that they were proven. It is only in your subjective opinion that the subjective assessment of the information you are provided is magically objective. Even the tests themselves are subjective: the tools selected, the methods used, the reasoning of such data. From whence came that leap from the obviously subjective to the objective?

It is a massive leap of faith. You have only been conditioned to think it is something in which you can solidly believe.


As an existential nihilist, I thought you'd be more about that approach. I now have to go into the corner and weirdly hum to by myself.

Edit - I read the rest of your post (especially the part about morality). It would seem, yet again, you were already aware of the above and I was wrong to think I am alone in that corner. Dude...stop doing that. At least let me have some sort of victory. uhuh



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I like that last line. It is the template to the answer of every moral quandary. Bear with me here as I attempt to summarize my viewpoint on why morality's such a b*tch:


Morality is the name applied to the subjective preferences of individuals. People prefer what benefits them on some level or another, and defining your morality is all about defining what pleases you psychologically. Moral=beneficial. Immoral=detrimental. The only argument I've heard that attempts to solidify morality as a genuine, objective, incontrovertible, universal constant is where a deity is invoked. They can't prove morality, so they bring in a god that can also not be proven (nor disproven). It is beyond our abilities to provide a shred of evidence for Universal Morality, or Universal Purpose, or God. But there is a ton of evidence to prove your own preferences.


I know you're about to echo the "what is proof/knowledge" view. But my subscription to Nihilism Weekly ends with the Existential and Moral editions. I've never found there's any practical application in the rest. The issue of 'what is reality', 'is knowledge real' and the like are questions whose answers travel in endless circles. They ask a lot, but none of it can be proven--including the demand that existence of proof be proven (I shit you not, I've been asked to do that by one very priggish college kid). I've been at the receiving end of enough "Well what is knowledge, anyway. How can you prove that what you know exists." Someone demanding a piece of specific knowledge that will prove all knowledge exists. A paradox. An endless circle of answer-counter-answer-counter. The query inside a solution inside a query, like an eternal Russian doll. Whatever we learn about reality can (and always is) rebuffed with a further demand that said explanation is indeed within reality. Useless arguments. And I'm not making a jab at you, by the way, but rather at those who think epistemological and metaphysical statements prove their point. Which is ironic, considering their stance on the nature of "proof".


I said before that my behaviour and choices in life are based off of what I experience. I have never experienced what I just phrased as "genuine, objective, incontrovertible, Universal Morality". Nor have I experienced Purpose. Nor God. But I have experienced (and witnessed) subjective preferences. And I have experienced (been given a lecture on) why that person's preference is more important to him (her) than anyone else's preference. I have experienced (debated on) why execution is moral to someone, and immoral to another. Same with wars, drugs, piracy, theft, fraud, name-calling, lying, sweeping things under the rug (metaphorically), and any variable of any issue under the sun. So many opinions on so many kinds of issues--all of them about whether something is morally wrong or not. Subjective preferences galore, but not a whit of objective morality to be found.

Ditto for Purpose. And God.

No, that's definitely not a jab at me. I fully agree with your point about them thinking an Objective Entity (God) somehow proves their point while pretending that proof is not provable.

"Well, nothing is provable and all morals are subjective. Alright, let's go to Church, now. God proves my moral choices are right."

WTF?

But, yes, ditto to the rest, too.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I... think that's all I have to say on it. I think... Can't quite seem to scoop up any more.

You admit that the subjective sum of your experiences filtered through your subjective reasoning lens. That is the absolute best anyone could ever hope to get anyone to admit in any moral debate. There is no more final or inexorable admission to any sort of moral debate than to admit that. It is from that seemingly benign position that all of us should hope from which to build common morals.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Pff, typical Chazz.

Even though it is a parody, it was still so damn annoying that I could not make it through the vid. pained