Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Prax · 01-09-2002, 06:33 AM

Quote:

If you had empathy, why not give them what they needed and reveal that you exist, instead of not interacting with them?

good question.

that would probably be the nice thing to do.

though having empathy and acting on empathy are 2 different things.

why wouldnt i act on my empathy?

hmmmmmm...being all powerful it would probably relate somehow to my ultimate boredom and corruption. (based on the premise that power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately)

if i had all the purported power of the christian deity i dont think i would be a very nice person...as much as id like to think i would...it would likely eventually go to my head and i would start creating things like eternal torment for people who dont like me, confusing and often contradictory dogma, etc, etc.

note: i am being sarcastic. ive been told sometimes its not obvious.

in all seriousness, id make the world just as is.
humans aside, its an interestingly balanced system.

peace,
/doda

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 01-09-2002, 06:36 PM

A world that I am satisfied with?

Hell yeah. Easy as pie. Giant orgy 24-7. Slaanesh! Slaanesh!

hedonologist · 01-10-2002, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doda
if i had all the purported power of the christian deity i dont think i would be a very nice person...as much as id like to think i would...

If you would really like to think you would be nice, remember that you would have the power to program any autonomic desires into your mind as you wanted. You could choose to make your own being nice the most enjoyable way to be, if you wanted. That is, unless there is some sort of logical reason why cruelty must be enjoyable (to you), no matter how much power you had.

Quote:

Originally posted by doda
note: i am being sarcastic. ive been told sometimes its not obvious.

You were sounding like a Christian for a minute there. I already wrote a reply…

Quote:

Originally posted by doda
in all seriousness, id make the world just as is.
humans aside, its an interestingly balanced system.

We do have some power, being humans. With the power you have, do you not change anything? You breathe, don't you?

hedonologist · 01-10-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChickenSoupForTheBowl
I would eliminate humans.

For the sake of the animals or who?

BTW, that is a funny nic you have. I started a thread on the harmful effects of THC and how to reduce them by using a vaporizer instead of smoking. I suppose if you really wanted to eliminate humans, you would be dead by now, unless you think it is some sort of "moral obligation" that you are having trouble living up to. So I'm assuming you wouldn't want to have diseases festering in your lungs, and throat. It is a slow and agonizing death. <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000519" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000519</a>

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

hedonologist · 01-10-2002, 01:35 PM

(pushed "quote" instead of "edit")

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

Prax · 01-11-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

hed: We do have some power, being humans. With the power you have, do you not change anything? You breathe, don't you?

im not sure i understand the direction you are driving this conversation in.

the OP was hypothetical...subsequent answers are equally hypothetical.

my statement was simply that i would not change the universe as it is...not that the universe, as it is, does not change.

Quote:

hed: You were sounding like a Christian for a minute there.

that was the sarcastic part!

/doda

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]

hedonologist · 01-11-2002, 06:01 AM

DODA, in the hypothetical you are given the power while you are human, today. So if you would change things about the world as a human, why would you stop when you became a "god"?

hedonologist · 01-11-2002, 06:52 AM

Where am I going with this? I'm tying it into the question of what our ultimate intention is. What is the simplest description of what you consider to be beneficial? For me, I would want freedom. I consider my freedom beneficial to me. But it becomes more difficult for me to know what I want when it comes to the question of how to treat other people. I know that I would want to help them, but I'm not sure whether it would be helping to give them the "total freedom" that I would want, if they would use this freedom to do what appears to me to be torturing themselves. This is because I have two ideals of what is beneficial which are sometimes in conflict-- freedom and pleasure. This creates somewhat of a "moral" dilemma. Would you rather try to influence those who seem to hurt themselves, against their initial choice, or just let them be?

Maybe if they had total freedom from the autonomic desires and natural suffering, they would not have any desire to hurt themselves or others, in which case there would be no conflict between my desire that they and everyone else, have pleasure and freedom.

There is also the issue of what is the nature of pleasure. For example, is it somehow intrinsically necessary, to be vulnerable to others, or that they be vulnerable to you, for a certain type of pleasure to exist? Can we only appreciate/enjoy pleasure, by having experienced pain in the past?

So there are two moral issues I'm addressing.
1. What is benefit?
2. What is the intrinsic logic/nature of benefit, such that even an "omnipotent" being could not change the nature of the benefit?

These questions regard the Problem of Evil, in theology, but they also have implications in all the decisions we make, assuming that we are seeking some sort of benefit in all that we choose.

Prax · 01-11-2002, 10:54 AM

gotcha. i think i understand. from this side of the forum, it seemed as though you asked one question, then evaluated the answers based on an underlying motivation for asking the first question, which we werent privy to...not based solely on the question as you asked it. does that make sense? thats not a criticism...just an observation. from my narrow point of view it made understanding your follow-ups difficult.

allow me to 're'-respond to the OP:

thats a very good and tough question.

why the perceived need for an 'ultimate intention'

allow me to quote george smith:

Quote:

The universe doesn't give a damn about you. It doesn't give a damn about me. The point is you're supposed to give a damn about yourself because if you don't, no one will. Certainly the universe won't. And in that sense I suppose you are insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. If you died tomorrow, the universe is not going to hold a funeral for you or stop in its tracks. The universe will continue on its merry way. It's not really correct to say you're insignificant because the idea of significance and insignificance makes no sense when you consider an inanimate cosmos. Significance is a term that only applies to some sort of conscious evaluation. But nonetheless, in a sense, you are not that significant as far as the totality of the universe is concerned. So far as the problem, "What purpose is there in man's life?", there is no purpose in 'man's' life. There is a purpose hopefully in your own life but it is up to you to set it. Again, if you don't, no one will for you.

while i think its admirable that you 'care' enough for your fellow man to want to wake them up to your version of 'reality' i think the 'ultimate intention', if one is needed or even exists, would have more to do with personal responsibilty for yourself and _whatever_ you choice to do or believe.

hed: whats wrong with what we have? simply because suffering and pain and death exist doesnt mean that its not supposed to be that way, or that their is anything wrong with it being that way.

this points been brought up before...but death is necessary for life. pain is neccesary for pleasure, etc, etc, etc, etc. if pain was a totally independent 'thing'...then id agree it was uneccesary...but i, like you, like pleasure.
if you eliminate pain, you eliminate pleasure.

why the obession with the current state of the universe being 'bad'?
sure, pain is 'bad' from a human perspective but how about from the larger context of the universe? it is rather, a 100% neccesary corollary and therefor it serves the fantastic purpose of allowing us the 'pleasure' of knowing when it stops. not to say its not _unfortunate_ for those in the midst of it...rather to say it is necessary and therfore not in need of general elimination across the entire universe.

again, i wouldnt change anything:

a. i dont know enough about the universe to make sweeping judgements about what is good or bad for everyone and everything.

b. i do not beleive, at this point, it is 'flawed' as it exists.

c. all the 'bad' stuff in this thread is only bad from the contextual perpective of the 'sufferer' and it is up to the suffer to make the call as to whether or not he/she needs to take steps to effect change...not a third party.

in a nut shell: if granted your hypothetical power i would ask to know what , if antyhing, is the ultimate truth and act on that knowledge once i have it. until i know, im going to go with keeping things the way they are...

i _really_ appreciate the pleasure in my life, thanks to the pain i have felt.

peace
/doda

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]

hedonologist · 01-11-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
gotcha. i think i understand. from this side of the forum, it seemed as though you asked one question, then evaluated the answers based on an underlying motivation for asking the first question, which we werent privy to...not based solely on the question as you asked it. does that make sense?

No. It doesn't seem to matter so much, to me, if it doesn't matter to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
while i think its admirable that you 'care' enough for your fellow man to want to wake them up to your version of 'reality' i think the 'ultimate intention', if one is needed or even exists, would have more to do with personal responsibilty for yourself and _whatever_ you choice to do or believe.

I wasn't speaking of the "universe's" or a god's intention for us, but our "ultimate" intention for doing what we do. For example, my intention in buying a bag of cement may be to make a sidewalk, and a more "fundamental" intention would be so I could walk on it, and a more fundamental intention would be so I could get somewhere without getting mud on my shoes. Ultimately, my intention would probably be pleasure, because getting somewhere without getting my shoes dirty makes me happy.

But if the idea of such an ultimate purpose seems too difficult to connect with specific actions, maybe it would make more sense to talk about the most fundamental purposes that you can deduce for categories of things you do.

So what you are saying doesn't seem to contradict what I said, other than that you seem to make it sound like an alternative.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
hed: whats wrong with what we have? simply because suffering and pain and death exist doesnt mean that its not supposed to be that way, or that their is anything wrong with it being that way.

this points been brought up before...but death is necessary for life. pain is neccesary for pleasure, etc, etc, etc, etc. if pain was a totally independent 'thing'...then id agree it was uneccesary...but i, like you, like pleasure.

if you eliminate pain, you eliminate pleasure.

The paragraph after "hed:" I do not remember writing and it doesn't look like something I would have written. I don't know where you got that.

Are you saying that no matter how much pain someone causes, this will inevitably lead to equal amounts of pleasure?

If not, then doesn't this imply that some amount of pain can be eliminated, without eliminating pleasure?

If some amount of pain can be eliminated without eliminating pleasure, is there any known limitation on how much pain could be eliminated without eliminating pleasure?

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
why the obession with the current state of the universe being 'bad'?

Because you can't improve something if you don't think it is "bad"/undesirable in comparison to the improvement.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
sure, pain is 'bad' from a human perspective but how about from the larger context of the universe? it is rather, a 100% neccesary corollary and therefor it serves the fantastic purpose of allowing us the 'pleasure' of knowing when it stops. not to say its not _unfortunate_ for those in the midst of it...rather to say it is necessary and therfore not in need of general elimination across the entire universe.

What is a "need" but a desire to be free of some "pain"?

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
again, i wouldnt change anything:

I just read some changes that you made. Everything you do changes the universe. It is just a difference of degree.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
a. i dont know enough about the universe to make sweeping judgements about what is good or bad for everyone and everything.

Neither do I, to some extent. That is why I thought it would be good for everyone to be able to make their own worlds and invite any willing person into them. They would be deciding for themselves what is good or bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
b. i do not beleive, at this point, it is 'flawed' as it exists.

Are you judging that the status quo is somehow better than what I suggest?

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
c. all the 'bad' stuff in this thread is only bad from the contextual perpective of the 'sufferer'

I'm not sure what you mean by "bad". If bad is not suffering, how are you defining/conceptualizing it?

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
and it is up to the suffer to make the call as to whether or not he/she needs to take steps to effect change...not a third party.

I'm not sure what it means that it is "up to", someone. It sounds as though you prefer that people take care of their own problems. I don't see what this has to do with the topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by D.O.D.A:
in a nut shell: if granted your hypothetical power i would ask to know what , if antyhing, is the ultimate truth and act on that knowledge once i have it. until i know, im going to go with keeping things the way they are...

Well, if I had the power, I would grant you the "ultimate truth", supposing there was one, rather than keep things as they are… unless God told me it was bad for you to have that knowledge. hehe

01-10-2002, 01:35 PM	#45
hedonologist Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: South CA Posts: 222	(pushed "quote" instead of "edit") [ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2002, 06:36 PM	#42
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	A world that I am satisfied with? Hell yeah. Easy as pie. Giant orgy 24-7. Slaanesh! Slaanesh!

01-11-2002, 06:01 AM	#47
hedonologist Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: South CA Posts: 222	DODA, in the hypothetical you are given the power while you are human, today. So if you would change things about the world as a human, why would you stop when you became a "god"?

01-11-2002, 06:52 AM	#48
hedonologist Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: South CA Posts: 222	Where am I going with this? I'm tying it into the question of what our ultimate intention is. What is the simplest description of what you consider to be beneficial? For me, I would want freedom. I consider my freedom beneficial to me. But it becomes more difficult for me to know what I want when it comes to the question of how to treat other people. I know that I would want to help them, but I'm not sure whether it would be helping to give them the "total freedom" that I would want, if they would use this freedom to do what appears to me to be torturing themselves. This is because I have two ideals of what is beneficial which are sometimes in conflict-- freedom and pleasure. This creates somewhat of a "moral" dilemma. Would you rather try to influence those who seem to hurt themselves, against their initial choice, or just let them be? Maybe if they had total freedom from the autonomic desires and natural suffering, they would not have any desire to hurt themselves or others, in which case there would be no conflict between my desire that they and everyone else, have pleasure and freedom. There is also the issue of what is the nature of pleasure. For example, is it somehow intrinsically necessary, to be vulnerable to others, or that they be vulnerable to you, for a certain type of pleasure to exist? Can we only appreciate/enjoy pleasure, by having experienced pain in the past? So there are two moral issues I'm addressing. 1. What is benefit? 2. What is the intrinsic logic/nature of benefit, such that even an "omnipotent" being could not change the nature of the benefit? These questions regard the Problem of Evil, in theology, but they also have implications in all the decisions we make, assuming that we are seeking some sort of benefit in all that we choose.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.