Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Autokrat is a fascist, while you are merely an imperialist. Autokrat supports blind authority, while you support extending authority.His compulsion was fixated on the hierarchy, while yours was looking at the reactionary struggle of the indigenous people.
Or maybe he is just a godless jerkpants.
i hated that movie so much. "GET SOME!!!!" about the 12th time was too much for me. Plus, it was pocohontas, and it wanted me to feel sorry for this little race of non-technologicals, and I don't even feel sorry for the alderaans.
Not to mention the inevitable sequal of this movie is: Earthlings return, bomb Avatar people from orbit.
Originally posted by truejedi
i hated that movie so much. "GET SOME!!!!" about the 12th time was too much for me. Plus, it was pocohontas, and it wanted me to feel sorry for this little race of non-technologicals, and I don't even feel sorry for the alderaans.Not to mention the inevitable sequal of this movie is: Earthlings return, bomb Avatar people from orbit.
And TJ, I never figured you for a transhumanist.
Spoiler:
more like Amish, amirite?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nope. Does the concept of a higher order offend you and your "logical thinking"?
Not to the slightest extend. Science is entirely based on the prinicipal of existing "higher orders". It just refuses - at least to a great deal - to explain their existance by the virtue of a higher being.
But if that was an attempt to ask for my personal opinion. I do belive in the existance of a "higher power" (if you have to call it "God", that's also okay with me). But I'm not religious. But neither do I belive in the way that religions describe God, nor do I think that such a being would be understandable, judgeable or perceiveable with human standards. And I'm also pretty certain that he wouldn't pass down a bunch of written laws upon us, some of which are pretty much idiotic and contradict human nature. But that's just me...
I don't recall saying I know what it means to "study philosophy". I even admitted to you that I know less than you or anyone else about philosophy and I'm completely fine with that. Not sure what "bullshit" you're referring to though. And it's not a "suggestion", it's an "assertion".
I was referring to that thing here: "...when I have to sit there when someone asks "what is truth", "what is love". Do you really think that this is what philosophy is about? Oh. I'm sure that such thought-experiments are done, but they serve a higher (much more practical) purpose.
I would ask you to prove this bullshit but since you're not going to, I'll move on.
That's easy: READ!
Correct, I believe this but why doesn't it make any sense?
Okay. Provided that you aren't experienced in the field of philosophy (yes, I got your PM), I will try to explain that in a way that is easy to understand (this is not meant as an insult).
Imagine the following situation: I create a labyrinth with just one possible way to get through it. Now I put a mouse into it and a piece of cheese on the only exit. I know that the mouse will try to use the cheese, because of natural instinct. Now...what kind of "free will" does the mouse have? I have set a clear path for it and it's forced to take said path because of it's nature. No free will present. I have decided what happens before even coming up with the mouse.
Now we can transfer that line of thoughts to a higher scale. God creates the first set of conditions (earth, humans, everything). Now everything is determined from that start on (just one possible way how events will unfold). That, logically, means that God could have altered any future events by making the first set of conditions different. Or, in other words: By chosing the set of conditions he did, he did ensure that anything will happen as it did happen. So who does ultimately decide here? The individual human being? Or are people forced to make a certain decission by the conditions that led to a certain point - all previously determined by God?
As a more concrete example: I'm certain you're familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. Now. God did create them and knew they could be tempted to eat the forbidden fruits. He then puts said fruits within their realm and, as icing on the cake, he slips in the snake who ensures that temption will happen. So, technically, God did create a situation which he knew would lead to his creations failing him for the first time. Now: Is that the fault of Adam and Eve who weren't made to resist temptation or rather the fault of the creator who made them that way first and after this generated conditions that must have led to said failure?
The point is: Using determinism as an explanation, you aren't left with any real choice because the present conditions force you to act in a certain way. Thusly, there can't be any true "free will" but human beings are just victims of circumstances / conditions. Now if you add a truely free will to the equation, then things can't be determined because a human would be able to decide ignoring the conditions (meaning they can be illogical, which makes them unpredictable).
Can God remain "omniscient" in that scenario? Yes. But the only way he could do that is to have a look into the future and see what kind of decissions have been made, leading to "omniscience" in the present - rather than "knowing" or truely "predicting" decissions. Yet I don't see why God needs to be omniscient at all.
Originally posted by Borbarad
I was referring to that thing here: "...when I have to sit there when someone asks "what is truth", "what is love". Do you really think that this is what philosophy is about? Oh. I'm sure that such thought-experiments are done, but they serve a higher (much more practical) purpose.
Okay. Provided that you aren't experienced in the field of philosophy (yes, I got your PM), I will try to explain that in a way that is easy to understand (this is not meant as an insult).Imagine the following situation: I create a labyrinth with just one possible way to get through it. Now I put a mouse into it and a piece of cheese on the only exit. I know that the mouse will try to use the cheese, because of natural instinct. Now...what kind of "free will" does the mouse have? I have set a clear path for it and it's forced to take said path because of it's nature. No free will present. I have decided what happens before even coming up with the mouse.
Now we can transfer that line of thoughts to a higher scale. God creates the first set of conditions (earth, humans, everything). Now everything is determined from that start on (just one possible way how events will unfold). That, logically, means that God could have altered any future events by making the first set of conditions different. Or, in other words: By chosing the set of conditions he did, he did ensure that anything will happen as it did happen. So who does ultimately decide here? The individual human being? Or are people forced to make a certain decission by the conditions that led to a certain point - all previously determined by God?
As a more concrete example: I'm certain you're familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. Now. God did create them and knew they could be tempted to eat the forbidden fruits. He then puts said fruits within their realm and, as icing on the cake, he slips in the snake who ensures that temption will happen. So, technically, God did create a situation which he knew would lead to his creations failing him for the first time. Now: Is that the fault of Adam and Eve who weren't made to resist temptation or rather the fault of the creator who made them that way first and after this generated conditions that must have led to said failure?
The point is: Using determinism as an explanation, you aren't left with any real choice because the present conditions force you to act in a certain way. Thusly, there can't be any true "free will" but human beings are just victims of circumstances / conditions. Now if you add a truely free will to the equation, then things can't be determined because a human would be able to decide ignoring the conditions (meaning they can be illogical, which makes them unpredictable).
Can God remain "omniscient" in that scenario? Yes. But the only way he could do that is to have a look into the future and see what kind of decissions have been made, leading to "omniscience" in the present - rather than "knowing" or truely "predicting" decissions. Yet I don't see why God needs to be omniscient at all. [/B]
This part is interesting.