A MANGLED COLLECTION OF SEMI-JUVENILE THOUGHTS

Hey there. This is still a very draft copy. My friend Joshua has to come here and help me edit this. I have numbered the paragraphs so that you can refer to them easier, if you wish to ask anything about them. [A] refers to Andrew writing, [F] refers to Felix, [J] refers to Josh. We wrote these little paragraphs during boring Physics lectures last year. There are many Australian references that you may not understand. Please ask for clarification about anything you need. Andrew is a VERY religious guy, I am not, and Josh I suppose is halfway in between. We all three go to the chess club at the University. I hope most of the errors are not too bad. Also, I have tried to keep as close as possible to the exact text we each wrote down, so grammar is not 100% perfect! I hope you comment on these... I would be most curious what you think. Okay?

 

1. [F] What can one person give the world? Do we owe anything back to society? If so, why, if no, why?

 

2. [J] One person can give the world a lot. They can also take away a lot too.
3. I would say we don't owe anything to society because, well it is just too hard to quantify. Why would we owe anything? We may 'owe' something to say, say our mother or father, but I'm not sure to society as a whole. Hmm...

 

4. [F] But supposing that we do owe something to someone, should that onus affect the way we behave?

 

5. [J] Perhaps. [F] Um... yes... well that is hardly enlightening. I mean, is it conscience that compels us to act out of a feeling of owing someone something in return for our existence?

 

6. [J] Yes. Well, having thought about this, maybe we don't 'owe' anything like we have 'rights' (if you believe that, Mr. Deontologist), but perhaps it is the nice thing to do. But, then, defining nice or not-nice sort of implies right and wrong then doesn't it? *Sigh*

 

7. [F] LôL. Could a person get through life without owing anyone anything? I suppose it goes back to the whole question of kindness to others without reward thingy. Who really is benevolent? And who isn't egoistic? I suppose if a person never owed anything, he must simply have dealt completely with truly benevolent individuals what do not want something in return.

 

8. (3) [J] If this 'owing' is unspoken does it still exist?

 

9. [F] Hmm... how most confusing! Basically 'owing' is something metaphysical... a "contract to be fulfilled sometime" by parties involved. However, I think anyone with normal mind will realise it's time to reciprocate kindness.

 

10. [J] A 'normal' mind. Ooooo, 'normal' is such a silly, confusing word.
END

 

31st August 2001 Physics 2

12. [J] (a) Um, yeah
13. (b) I think psychological egoism is a load of crap. That doesn't mean don't act selfishly sometimes, but these 'benevolent' people, as you say, who do something kind of no reward, don't do it just to feel good about themselves.
14. (c) Some acts are not egoistic, they are benevolent.
15. (d) It depends how you define 'owe', if you are just say 'I'll give you this if you this if you give me that,' then you might 'owe' something but you're not talking philosophically--which 'owe' are you speaking of?

 

17. Note: You know I'm going to compile this and, write it in a book 'Josh & Felix's Philosophical Dialogues', or something.

 

18. [F] I reckon 'owe' in the sense of contract, which aims to lead to mutual benefit of parties involved.

 

20. [F] Some people may say we have the present world due to design. Is it not equally likely that the world is the way it is because it is? And everything just happens to be this way because it's worked out like this, and that's just that. A pool of water forms when rain collects. No one thing 'designed' that pool of water; it just got to be like that! What say you?

 

21. [J] Well, the rain 'designed' the water. The slopes of the land, the contours, etc. I think that's what they mean. What did you mean by 'design'?

 

22. [F] Well, what I thought 'design' meant was a conscious, contrived endeavour to construct something that otherwise would not have come into existence: like a watch, which is clearly mechanical, and not Natural.

 

23. [J] Do you mean the mechanics of the watch itself? or time itself? [F] The mechanics! The pieces that have been made to move. Time is natural, we cannot design that!

 

24. [J] 'conscious' hmm...
25. You know, you should really go see PI, they talk about this stuff. Like the guy thinks that in everything there is a pattern: some numbers to describe it. Including your water puddle.
This implies there is maths in everything and as such, it could be said that things are 'designed' in that way. What do you think about this?

27. CFFM

28. [F] Even if there is maths in everything, it doesn't mean everything is designed. Maths is a human device which enables analysis of Nature and as such patterns in Nature => patter in maths, but design in Nature!

 

29. [J] 'Maths is a human device' hmm... that is VERY controversial. If maths has patterns when applied to nature, does that not imply that there are patterns (or design...) in nature?

 

30. [A] Felix -- if I gave you a watch, would you look at the complex detail inside, with all the mechanisms fitting so perfectly together, and conclude that it was a product of random process or design of an intelligent being?

 

31. [F] The watch is a product of intelligent designer: humans! And let's not confuse Josh, what I thought I meant by "design". There are pattern at the sea: the wave: but they are not "designed" by, in Andrew B.'s word, "intelligent being" now are they?

 

32. [J] Well, why not? What is the difference between patterns in a watch and patterns in the sea?

 

33. [A] But what if you did not know that the watch was a product of an intelligent design? What would you conclusions be? Because there is a finite probability that given the correct parts, they could find themselves made into a watch when energy is added to the system?

 

34. [F] If the watch were unknown to be a product of intelligent designer, it would be an occurrence of Nature. Waves happen without a purpose: purposeless pattern. A watch ticks in a pattern because it was made to: purposeful pattern.

 

35. [J] Yes... but what is saying that nature isn't the product of an intelligent designer? What is the difference???
36. And how can you say that whether we know that the watch is a product of an intelligent designer or not makes a difference to whether it is a product of 'humans' or 'nature'? It is like Schrodinger's Cat.

 

37. [A] "Waves happen without a purpose" -- how can you know that they don't have a purposeful pattern? If waves were made to move in a pattern they move in, then it is a purposeful pattern. You still haven't answered Josh's question about the difference between the two -- they are both just periodic patterns -- one we know is put into that pattern by a human, but apart from that, they are both just "periodic patterns."

 

38. [F] BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! ONE WE CAN BEGIN AND STOP, THE OTHER WE CANNOT! ONE is the result of atmospheric processes that have always been so, the other is pushed by a coiled spring put there. We can be of one as being made by an intelligent being, but not the other. And while there is a possibility that waves are there as a product of intelligent design, it is equally likely they are not. And why bother to hypothesise such a grand, far-reaching possibility, when it is only a belief held by a few back-looking people for whom truth pends not on thought and investigation, but the regurgitation of archaic fables devised in times when the world was flat? The sheer contradictions inherent in religion highlight the possibility that only one can be correct. If this be the case, we can assume the institution of religion is flawed and only a social phenomenon.

 

39. [A] You say that "while there is a possibility that waves are there as a product of intelligent design, it is equally likely they are not." How is it equally likely that they are not? My point with the watch is that complex design in a watch is associated with intelligent design, not with chance and randomness. That is a fact of today -- complex design and high level information comes about through intelligent creations by humans, so the principle is one of analogy, process like tide movement, the waves and other natural phenomena are highly complex. Even on a higher scale of complexity are forms of life such as humans. So why is there any reason to suppose the principle of patterns and complexity being the product of intelligent designed should be violated for the most complex phenomena and creatures?

 

40. [F] But is there anything that is random and occurs by default... because anything else doesn't?

 

41. [A] Please explain  (no, I'm not trying to imitate P.H.)

 

42. [F] I mean, we have X, and the only reason we have X is because we have no alternative.
43. [A] What is your X though? I am saying that materialism is not valid -- my alternative is that there is intelligence behind phenomena such as the waves (and ourselves and all other forms of life).

 

44. [F] Yes, fine. Suppose we don't care what X is. X is you, X is me. X is whatever it so happens to be. What's important is that $X, & X¹Y! And what's more, X is just there because X1, X2, X...n do not exist, where Xi is an alternative to X that does not exist.

 

45. [A] Your turn to ponder this one Josh.

 

46. [J] IDIOT
47. [A] I'm totally lost.
48. [J] Me too.
49. [A] Speak in English, not Maths
50. [J] Don't speak.            [A] Write

 

51. [F] X is X because it exists as X and not as anything else. Agree?

 

52. [J] Point being? The relevance is?

 

53. [F] Well, if something is what it is because it exists, how could it have been designed?

 

54. [J] Huh? What has that got to do with it?

 

55. [A] So you are saying that everything has always existed, that there was not beginning of time?

 

 

57. 3rd September 1939 WW2

58. [F] Can a person be persecuted for doing something they genuinely believe to be correct?

 

59. [J] Yes. Maybe. Well, it all depends if you think there is right or wrong (different from true/false). Do you?

 

60. [F] I suppose persecution demands the existence of right/wrong. Otherwise, there are only trivial grounds on which to judge a person, such as race/gender/beliefs.

 

61. [J] Yeah, so answer the question.

 

62. [F] Adopting a right/wrong belief inevitably means one subscribes to the idea of binaries: black/white, cold/hot, young/old. I suppose that's harder to answer that just right/wrong one. And the existence of binaries is something tempting, yet I am not absolutely convinced. What say you of A/B?

 

63. [J] I thought you were all Mr. Deontologist?
64. I'm not convinced either, but I think there is truth.
65. Not sure about right/wrong. Hmm....
66. So you don't like this binary stuff, but you think there is right/wrong?

 

67. [F] Right/wrong, as a deontologist, must exist. However, a utilitarian would be

 

68. {Wrong |//////////////X//////////////Y//////////////| Right} Y is more correct/right than X and therefore Y should be less heavily punished.

 

69. [F] However, I believe binaries can be redefined. Instead of right/wrong, we have right/not right, light/not light,  etc.

 

70. [A] Proposition for further discussion in relation to this topic: the standard of morals/ethics in a society is determined by the predominant religion in their society. i.e, a predominantly atheistic society would imply greater crime rates etc. [added later in top margin]

 

71. [F] If morals/ethics are not culturally/socially relative, is anything? Or are they socially relative?

 

72. [J] No, they are not.

 

73. [F] Anything, for example         conception of beauty

a.       rights of citizens

b.      knowledge's conception

 

74. [J] Well beauty is a tricky thing, and I wouldn't say there is any overall rule to that. In that case, I would say I would take a relativist view to that, but objective to pretty much everything else. Ethics? Not sure
75. Anyway, 'rights' is directly linked to what's wrong and what's right, and there is the question as to whether we have any anyway. You think yes? I would be tempted to say yeah, but I'm not sure.
76. 'Conception of knowledge', you mean that what one culture thinks is advanced, another doesn't value, and all that matters is what's relevant to each individual society? Hmm, that's a bit relativist, and I am tempted to say there is objective truth (in, say, science) that applies to all. What do you think, sir?

 

 

78. [J] Beauty, I think, is a very individual thing, and is probably a combination of many factors, but I'm not sure it is an 'entity' at all. Perhaps only an 'entity' in our minds.
79. Not sure about sexual, I mean beauty doesn't have to be human, it can be anything. I find, for example, the forests of British Columbia to be beautiful, and I rather doubt I have any sexual desires towards those trees. (well, I hope not.).
80. As to those people who say 'people you find attractive is just all to do with replicating your genes and finding the partner with the best genes' etc. etc. Well, I'd like to think it is more than that. Well, I hope it is. And it seems that it is, so that is good enough for me.

 

81. [F] Yes... I agree totally with your comments. I suppose I wanted to focus on the human side of things... because I'm stupid. Yes... the sky/sea/forest etc......are all beautiful because they are Natural. What is of interest to me is beauty people create via art, and beauty that finds expression in the bodies of certain (lucky) people and how their beauty relates to sexuality. Sexuality/beauty is certainly more extended than the replicatory mechanisms they are said to serve (by some people anyway)

 

82. 14th Sept
1. [J] Really, I don't know whether sexuality makes any difference. Does the fact that it exists pose a problem for Mr. evolution because that doesn't really have much to do with replicating genes. Though I have heard stuff about these gay couples becoming 'wise elders' who have a special purpose in a tribe, or something, and they thus have some evolutionary purpose. Hmm, indeed.

 

2. 'Beauty that people create'. Yes, very interesting. You mentioned art, but since we were just arguing about music, let's take that. Different people find different things beautiful (ie you Mr. Mozart, me Mr. Romantic etc.) it is just and individual thing. Why are these things (art, music etc.) beautiful? Buggered if I know, but they feel great to enjoy, so who cares? Well, it would be nice to know, but I'm not too worried.

 

83. [F] Well, yeah. Um... I know... being an evolutionist/materialist would lead me to deduce that gays are just a drag (pardon the pun) on society and its expansion. But we could chuck in the human-centric conception of the World, whereby we say we are different to animals, and that therefore art/sexuality/etc have come about and continue to exist not for replication, but merely social things we have created.
84. We may not know what beauty is or why we seek it, but we know we do seek it. This being the case, art had come and exists for no other purpose but to serve the human search for beauty, which may not be replicatory, but could be evolutionary. (Just like medicine doesn't always lead to procreation increasing, but evolution (survival of species) is aided by medical science.

 

85. [J] Homosexuality isn't a product of our social civilization -- it is prevalent in many animal species. And a 'drag on society' -- not really. A drag to a society of animals in the wild? Perhaps.
86. Yes
87. [F] Homosexuality is genetically determined... hmm... this could raise some eyebrows, but it's a logical conclusion.

 

88. Q: What does "(2) Yes" refer to?

 

89. [J] The 2nd paragraph. Homosexuality genetically determined? Hm... maybe partially.

 

90. [F] Well, if not genetically, socially?

 

91. Hm, I think this discussion has nowhere interesting to go.

 

92. [J] Oooo

93.  Both

 

94. 12th Sept 2001

 

95. [F] Could you think without words?

 

96. [J] Yes, but that is a very interesting one. I've thought about this before actually _ like how do deaf people think. It is just what we associated words with certain objects, and, thus, think about stuff in terms of words. If you don't know a language for whatever reason, then you just think in a different type of 'association'. So if you define 'words' as English (or some other language) that is spoken, then yeah you can. But you still need some for of 'association' to think.

 

97. [F] So this "association" requires something outside the mind such that the mind may think. Does this something also imply a world? (Ie., can we think if were are isolated from the world & have been for all our lives?)

 

98. [J] ie. if you have no senses (and never have) can you think? Hmm... I guess you have nothing to think about, so I guess not, but you'd still be capable.

 

99. [F] So there is a potential for thinking in everyone? Thinking doesn't come about through being in an environment? We have potential for thought inherent in us?

 

100. [J] Well, you can't think without having something to think about.

 

101. [F] How about thinking you have nothing to think about?
102. <LoL LoL LoL>\

 

103. I suppose you can't think if you don't have something to think about. An awareness of environment leads to development of thinking. Agree'st thou?

 

104. [J] Well it leads to the ability of thinking, maybe. So yeah.
105. [F] So then we aren't born with thinking ability?

 

106. [J] Yes, but we need a supply of information in order to operate the mechanism, which we have regardless.

 

107. [F] But once we have this information, it leads to a development of 'mechanism', right?

 

108. [J] NO. Why?

 

109. How the hell would that happen?

 

110. [F] Development = grow/improve

 

111. [J] No

 

 

112. [F] In light of what religion has done to us, can it be justified as a wholesome, healthy activity? [Andrew did not reply.]

113.                      O, you see how hypocritical/censorial/hushed people are when something uncomfortable arises?

114. [J] People are trying to find meaning you know. Sometimes interests conflict. Have you?

 

115. [F] Have I tried to find meaning?

 

116. Meaning can only come about (to me) through knowledge... and anything that hinders the advancement of knowledge hinders meaning. The track record of the Church is not good, and its present reluctance to discuss issues openly and without bias, not the mention the suffocatingly low and narrow viewpoint of many of its members leave me to believe they hinder knowledge's progress and therefore I am rather unfriendly to the institution known as Church or organised religion.
117. Just look at how insincere and bizarre the evangelist (especially TV in the U.S.A.) are!

 

118. More fundamentally, suppose I believe X is the truth, and someone held that Y is the truth. Naturally, if X¹Y, I shall be hostile to people supporting Y. This is the stance of Christians... what they don't understand though is that X is in my case measurable, undeniable truth, whereas Y is religion founded on faith, which may be truth only to those who want to accept it as truth.

 

119. Physics II 14th Sept 2001

 

120. [J] I guess that's right, but they could be right anyway, it is just that you'll never know.

 

121. [F] Yes, but they've only had 2000 years!

 

122. [J] I don't mean Christianity as such, I mean things which may be beyond our understanding that may be true, but we just won't know if it is or not. SO, I guess faith is need. Faith vs. Science. Hmm... why do you hate contact so much?

 

123. [F] I never entertained more that an attack on Christianity! And with Contact, I don't necessarily hate it, but its "deepness" is rather flimsy and as a film, it's not as substantial as others I could name.

 

124. [J] Flimsy? Tsk. It has a great Faith vs. Science argument throughout the whole movie. What, not as substantial as 2000 or something? Well, I beg to differ, but personal taste.
125. Anyway, doesn't your argument apply to all types of faith?

 

126. [F] Yeah, I suppose faith must be eliminated/eradicated as irrational, emotional and socially constructed. (These words are cold, and make me sound like a heartless atheist monster.)

 

127. [J] Ooo. Really, you have no faith? In anything? I pity you.

 

128. [F] I know. Why do you think I am so psychotic and depressed?

 

129. [J] Fair enough. (You're MAD!) End of discussion. Q.E.D.

 

130. 14th Sept 2001

 

131. Why is it that most people are in the middle of things, regardless of what we measure? Is the Gaussian distribution of data a universal thing, and therefore applicable to people and their measurable properties?
132. {This is just a crappy topic to keep me from getting bored... because you asked me to write something.}

 

133. [J] Measurable properties? Such as? Yeah, it is a really dumb topic. I don't have any facts, but I would instinctively doubt that it would be universal. 'Why is it that most are in the middle of things'--as in why do most people share similar features?
134. {I'll put on my evolutionists hat and say these extreme members are less likely to survive than the average group, and, hence, there are less of them. How's that?}

 

135. [F] Concentrate on this, I think. Well, at the 'lower' end, they will not survive as well as well, but at the 'upper' end, they have more chances of surviving? "Measurable properties" = height/weight/life expectancy (and the dubious, detestable IQ!).

 

136. [J] The upper does not necessarily mean they have a better chance of survival, but it may.

 

137. [F] Yes, I dislike the notion of 'upper' = better. However, I suppose by sheer force, the stronger will overpower weaker... and it is up to society to remove this fact, which governs animals but not civilization. (Or so it should)

 

138. [J] Yeah, this is a difference between humans and animals. Why do you think this is so?

 

139. [F] I wish I knew, but I'm glad you think it is a difference! It is very tempting, at this point, to say that humans are all-important and everything else is subservient to them and was created for humans, but I consider such a move a trap. It is so difficult to accept that we emerged as global rulers during the present epoch, just like dinosaurs were dominant a while (much longer than Christianity) ago. This means that one would be naive to believe we will continue to be the dominant race forever! But that's life, hey?

 

140. [J] Um, it is a bit different to dinosaurs. We are species, 'dinosaurs' as the term is used, are thousands. Difference.

 

141. [F] Yes, pardon me, I do not study biology. But my point was that something else was dominating, and dinosaurs were rather closely related Josh.

 

142. [J] Yeah, but nothing like humans. Did you see dinosaurs building New York? (And then blowing it up).

 

143. [F] No, they did not. I suppose we could possibly conclude that we are special. However, this is egocentric. What's more, suppose we are achieving things like never before because we are in the present and are most advanced life forms so far. NYC buildings are impressive, but suppose there are more impressive things to come? Suppose that animals grouping into herds ages go was as impressive as the NYC buildings are to us?

 

144. [J] Maybe it's egocentric, but I didn't think you can deny there is a difference. Isn't grouping into herds a natural occurrence -- constructing things is quite different -- but, admittedly, not unique to humans. Hmm.

 

145. [F] Indeed not isolated to humans. All were consider therefore great, we do so because it is done by us and we are biased to impress ourselves by our "achievements".

 

146. 3rd Oct 2001

147. Phy 2 / CFMM

 

148. [F] McDonald's versus cuisine/fine dining is analogous to 'street art' or 'pop art' versus 'high art'. Agree? Disagree. Why/not?

 

149. [J] Yes... Because it is.
150. Just something else on that, as we were talking about yesterday. You said you agreed with me when I said something like you are 'free' (you'd like that word wouldn't you!) to like what you want, but that you must admit there is something more to 'high art' than 'pop art'. Well, if it doesn't matter what each individual finds brilliance in, then isn't that irrelevant? Discuss.

 

151. [F] Because we are not measuring individuals' disparate fancies and tastes. We set an aesthetic by which we cold-heartedly measure a work. This is something similar to science: measure! Of course, there is a human side to it too, which I guess would make it subjective when it should really be objective.
152. The sheer amount of effort involved is one factor independent of taste. Another is the amount of information (such as allusions or puns in Shakespeare) packed into a work of art. Double meaning, twice the value? I dunno!

 

153. [J] Effort? People can spend years on something that you would consider a load of tripe. How can effort = good result? Not always. And how, oh how, can you quantify these things?

 

154. [F] It's not a question of quantify but qualify! Yes, true about effort, but you didn't answer me about "information packed into the work". The density of what the work is conveying! Réspondez s'il vous plaît.

 

155. [J] How do you quantify quality?

 

156. [F] A story can naively be broken in two classes
1. A pure narrative where no comment is made.
2. A story where a comment is made.

                                                               i.      Agree?

 

157. [J] But, it is all a matter of interpretation. Remember the A Clockwork Orange thing you were reading yesterday? You disagreed. Things -- meaning, comment, -- can be interpreted from things that the creator didn't intend.
158. And your division is too simplistic. But, maybe, from the creator's point of view, yeah.

 

159. [F] What comment can be extracted from: "I went shopping. I met my friend James. We ate lunch. I came home" or whole novels that drivel on with such shit?

 

160. [J] You can't find any, but someone might! And besides, why does a comment make it better?

 

161. [F] A comment makes it better because the same text carries more meaning... more information.

 

162. |                |                  |                 |
163. |                |                  |{comment}|
164. |{narrative}|                  |{narrative}|                  <U see!>

 

165. [J] ANDREW will you comment?

 

166. [A] On your first point, regarding whether one type of music/literature etc is "better" than another -- you can measure the quality of something by using standards such as how long they last (ie are they a hit for one week but then disappear, or are they still listened to/read 100 yrs later) -- ie. how long they appeal to the "majority" of people. This is why there are "classics" -- novels that have substance­, and are still sold in large quantities decades/centuries after they were produced. However, my opinion of whether one novel is better than another is subjective, so it is not absolute. I can dislike a classic for personal reasons, but that in no way diminishes the actual "quality" of the book. Son onto your comment about something being "better" because it carries more meaning -- it depends on the definition of "better" -- a novel with substance and a moral/comment/though-provoking idea in it is better quality, possibly more edifying, etc, but you might still enjoy reading a pure narrative book just for the pleasure it provides.

 

167. [J] Yes, I guess there is a big distinction between thinking 'people can like what they want, and nothing is better than anything else' and 'people can like what they want, but some things are really better than other things.' It is really the objectivist/sceptic debate. So I assume you two are objectivists? ie there is truth? If so, to what degree? And if there is truth in the stuff we've been talking about, does that people 'better' than others if they like certain 'high-quality' [and these inverted commas are very large] things?

 

168. [F] First off, bravissimo Andrew. My big fat mouth could not have said it better. Joshua, are we clear now that people are free to choose what they like, but certain works outlive others by what they carry (ie., substance.) As to 'high quality' people, who consume 'high-quality' art (again BIG commas) let's not make value judgements! It's too politically incorrect! Maybe Nazi Germany would have been more fertile for such ideas.

 

169. [A] People are not "better" than others if they like "high=quality" material, but this is different to the debate about truth or no truth. Yes, I believe there is truth, and someone who knows truth is not "better" than someone who doesn't -- the person who doesn't just has to suffer consequences of being wrong. I know you do not believe in afterlife etc, but according to Christian theology, all truth will be revealed after our physical death. Example of my pt. On suffering the consequences: If I am convinced p = 7, then someone who believes p = 3.1415926535897932.... is not "better" than me, but they are right, and I will suffer the consequences when I get bad marks. BTW, that must be the 1st time I've written something Felix agrees with!!!

 

170. [J] What about Ehtical truth?
171. [A] Yes
172. [J] And how do you decide what is?
173. [A] You need a standard. This standard has been, to the best of my knowledge, based on the dominant religion of a particular society, and thus varies between societies (ie there is a large difference in what is morally acceptable in a Muslim society to a Christian society).
174. When a society becomes "areligious" (I tihnk I made that word up, but you know what I mean), there is moral decline -- increase in crime, evil practices etc. That is not to say that "religious" governments and systems have not and do not become corrupt sometimes -- is has clearly happened in times like the Spanish Inquisition (R Catholics decided to enforce Catholicism on all) and the acts of Muslim extremists. However, the corruption in "religious" societies comes about not as moral decline, but when the leaders attempt to enforce the religion on the people. [J] --> SIDE ARGUMENT

 

175. Okay, so you think ethics is dependent on each society? That there is no overall ethical truth?

 

176. [A] I think there should be overall ethical truth, (and is) but it appears that ethics do vary between societies -- don't you agree?

 

177. [J] Well yeah, they do vary. So if there is some overall ethical truth, then some of these (or all) societies/religions are mistaken, at least in part.

 

1. Do you think us mere mortal humans can discuss this ethical truth, as you think there is one? Or do we have to wait for God to tell us once we die?

 

2. I know we are drifting topics here, but it doesn't matter if the discussion moves in certain directions naturally.
177. I don't think religion is a load of tripe. I think it is a product of us humans trying to give our lives meaning or some higher purpose, and that is a good thing. If it gives people meaning or some higher purpose, and that is a good thing. If it gives people meaning, hope and joy, then fine. And hey, any one of (or a combination of) these religions may prove correct.
178. Or maybe none of them are there us no meaning -- who knows? That is one thing I don't understand -- how can you believe, say, the Christian faith -- some completely when you don't 'know' it to be true? I know, perhaps, I answered my own question, by saying 'faith', Oh well!

 

180. (C) --And religion has been involved in its fair (vary fair) share of conflicts in history.

 

181. --And on the topic of leaders enforcing things onto people, have you seen A Clockwork Orange? (Andrew) Felix -- see? heavy civil intervention is bad. You would agree yes?

 

182. Felix -- yes

 

183.                      SIDE ARGUMENT

 

184. [A] An example of my pt -- why don't we accept killing of one another (ie murder)? It is nothing to do with instinct that this might be wrong -- animals kill each other, even within the same species. [J] (1) You believe! [A] We believes that murder is wrong because early human civilization too the 10 commandments (or variations) which include one "You shall not murder." [J] (2) You mean you believe

 

185. (D) And, if you believe that God created humans, and then created animals as distinct from them (ie without souls etc.), then why would you think there are any direct similarities to human and animal behaviours? If we are fundamentally different (and I'm not saying we are), then is it not like that we would be different in some behavioural way? At least the first part (*(1)) of what you said sounds like something and evolutionist would say!

 

186. --And just because I think that (perhaps) killing a chimp is as bad as a human, doesn't mean I think they're the same. I just sort of tend towards a Buddhist philosophy about the 'sanctity of all life'. ie killing an Ant is bad!

 

187. [A] Why aren't you a vegetarian?
188. Answer: [J] Maybe I can't.

 

189. [A] I hope you don't ever accidentally tread on one when you walk around -- do you stare at the ground in front of you first to make sure there is no ant there? What about the microscopic life forms?

 

190. [J] ehh, no. Having a brain at least advanced, as say, an Ant wouldn't be nice.

 

191. [A] Yes, even an ant's brain is highly advanced. Compared to what we can build.

 

192. [end of Side Argument]

 

193. [J] Back to that quality argument thing. So if there is an objective truth to these things doe that mean you can take every piece of literature ever written and put them in a list of best --> worst which is the supposed 'truth'?

 

194. [A] NO

 

195. [J] Oh, so you're wrong then.

 

196. 5th Oct 2001

 

197. [F] How can we have a moralist responsible for our society's morals (censor-general, governor-general, attorney-general) who is supposed to give us moral guidance, when his definition of 'morality' is a faith-based one (ie., ex-Bishop) and not a philosophical one. Do you think it is fair/just/etc. that one person decide what consenting adults see? Ie., in S.A., after the attorney general saw Salo the movie, he disapproved and it is subsequently banned, yet in Sweden, anyone 15+ years can see it. Are we not to conclude we are a conservative, regressive society?

 

198. [J] Well, no, not one person. But what is the alternative. I am not aware of the content of this film, but I think we do have to draw the line somewhere. Do you think it is okay for 'consenting adults' to acquire extreme religious propaganda (ie. Nazi stuff?) should that be available? Who does that benefit? And isn't philosophy just another 'faith', it doesn't really matter what person it is, it is always going to be biased, but, I guess, a philosophical one may be the most objective.

 

199. [F] From my naive, meagre, disagreeable knowledge, philosophy is far from a faith in the usual definition of faith: belief without explicit knowledge. Philosophy is independent of religion, whose expression varies from social group to social group. It is an extraction of human-based experience and hypothesation, with no dogma. Consenting adults are allowed to view any material they so wish, because -- and here I once again lean on J. S. Mill! -- as long as it does not influence others. And this movie is questionable morally only to those whose definition of morality is such that is it dictated by some 'rules' rather than arrived at by rational deduction and self-realisation of the "wrongness" or certain actions.

 

200. [J] What if something actively supports murder? Something that says Do it! Do it! Do it! Kill! Kill! Kill! You'd say that is perfectly fine for distribution to 'adults', despite the possible results from it?

 

201. [F] Yes, because as 'adults', -- who can rationally deduce the 'wrong-ness' of "kill kill kill," the message will appear stupid and they will by choice ignore it and laugh at it, no doubt.

 

202. [J] You think all adults can 'rationally deduce' that murder is wrong? eh, no. It might be obvious to you, but no everyone.

 

203. [F] It is the role of education to make it obvious to as many people as possible. Those who cannot see it are not 'adult' according to my definition. And plus, Kant believed we are all inherently good-natured. Even though it would help my case, I have to dismiss his idea! Nonetheless, those who cannot realise murder as wrong are incompletely developed 'adult' and need education or should be barred from viewing certain material.

 

204. [J] Censorship, or R18+ etc, doesn't distinguish between your Felix def'n of 'adult'.
205. Well, Kant could be wrong.
206. So ideally, if we can ban these 'non-adults' from this material and educate (or rehabilitate) them, then fine.

 

207. But you can't. So it doesn't matter.