robot show (2 Viewers)

[Ex-User (1487)]

yeah, that's what he meant... *titter*

 

[spectraljanitor]

our purpose on earth is to make babies and make mortgage repayments.




in reality though i think Ray Carver put it well:

"And did you get what
you wanted from this life, even so?
I did.
And what did you want?
To call myself beloved, to feel myself
beloved on the earth."

 

[snakybus]

no, I don't think morality could ever be cited as a "reason"

for anything

A friend of mine, who's a vegetarian and an atheist, believes in a "natural" morality - that the reason you need to do good by people or display altruistic traits is because you have a responsibility towards nature bestowed on you by natural selection.

Sure, yeah, I'd agree with that, though I'd say it holds about as much water as any religious dogma. Take a mother bird who looks after a cuckoo that's not her own progeny - she's hardwired to do it, millions of years of evolution has made sure of it, and the cuckoo species lives on in evolutionary terms. Smart bird. So it would seem that this simple act is a very reasonable explanation of morality, especially to a scientist such as yourself Egg. But when it comes down to it, the only reason I think it could be the be-all and end-all is because it feels reasonable. And that's an emotion, it's not the truth. Reason is an emotional reaction, a comfortable feeling of "I've got the answers, check out the big brain on me".

If reasonable is all we look for then we'll never find the truth, because it's also reasonable to say that, say, philosophy is a useless pursuit if you're a down-to-earth man of the soil, that arty farty music is a waste of time if you're a busy bank manager who has only time for the Stereophonics, or that loving one person for your whole life makes any sense whatsoever when you're someone who's only known disappointment and hatred in your life. Okay, these are facile little parables that may have nothing to do with morality or the answer to the question "why?", but I need them to explain how I see the difference between an abstract search for the truth and a concrete search for facts. Simply put, I mean this: you know that these things aren't true. And you don't know for a fact. You just know.

why? that's the why

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

yep, that's a nice one alright. love is the reason, some people fuigure it out, some people don't. if everything was taken away, what would be the last thing you'd part with? if the answer is love, you get the joke. if not, joke's on you. pretty simple really.

in reality though i think Ray Carver put it well:

"And did you get what
you wanted from this life, even so?
I did.
And what did you want?
To call myself beloved, to feel myself
beloved on the earth."

 

[Jimmy Magee]

To jump back in and cut across everyone, and reply to egg's original objection...

To me, there's two sorts of "why"s - first, the causal sort of why, where you seek to explain something by seeing what sort of events led up to it and indicating how the events are connected. On the other hand you have the purposive, teleological sort of "why", where you say so-and-so did something for whatever reason, or we're here to serve God, or whatever (maybe those two things are slightly different, should perhaps be subdivided). And I agree that neither of these will adequately explain why the universe exists (I mean, saying God made it or something is a cop-out - where did God come from?) My suspicion is that the odd sensation you get when you wonder how on earth the universe exists is probably an awareness of the sheer unexplainability of it. No type of conceivable explanation (at least, I can't imagine one) could ever tell you why there is something rather than nothing, as far as I'm concerned. If someone can think of the form such an answer would take, I'd like to hear it. But I can't imagine one. Now I'm just guessing that it is this unexplainability that makes one feel this way; I could be wrong.

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

you're dead too.

no, I don't think morality could ever be cited as a "reason"

for anything

A friend of mine, who's a vegetarian and an atheist, believes in a "natural" morality - that the reason you need to do good by people or display altruistic traits is because you have a responsibility towards nature bestowed on you by natural selection.

Sure, yeah, I'd agree with that, though I'd say it holds about as much water as any religious dogma. Take a mother bird who looks after a cuckoo that's not her own progeny - she's hardwired to do it, millions of years of evolution has made sure of it, and the cuckoo species lives on in evolutionary terms. Smart bird. So it would seem that this simple act is a very reasonable explanation of morality, especially to a scientist such as yourself Egg. But when it comes down to it, the only reason I think it could be the be-all and end-all is because it feels reasonable. And that's an emotion, it's not the truth. Reason is an emotional reaction, a comfortable feeling of "I've got the answers, check out the big brain on me".

If reasonable is all we look for then we'll never find the truth, because it's also reasonable to say that, say, philosophy is a useless pursuit if you're a down-to-earth man of the soil, that arty farty music is a waste of time if you're a busy bank manager who has only time for the Stereophonics, or that loving one person for your whole life makes any sense whatsoever when you're someone who's only known disappointment and hatred in your life. Okay, these are facile little parables that may have nothing to do with morality or the answer to the question "why?", but I need them to explain how I see the difference between an abstract search for the truth and a concrete search for facts. Simply put, I mean this: you know that these things aren't true. And you don't know for a fact. You just know.

why? that's the why

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

Re: On Not Thinking Of An Elephant

hee hee, did you actually PM him or was this a joke? as in "yo richie, i just PM-d you the answer..."

PM-ed you, Richie...

 

[snakybus]

yep, that's a nice one alright. love is the reason, some people fuigure it out, some people don't. if everything was taken away, what would be the last thing you'd part with?

a comb

heh heh

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

a comb


heh heh

 

[Buckrake]

Quicky guide to Philosophy.

Aristotle: 'Man is a rational animal.'

Descartes: 'I think, therefore I am.'

Nietzsche: 'God is dead.'

Buckrake: 'Strap on dat jammypack!'

 

[japeo]

hey thanks a lot dudes,

you guys are like, intelligent and stuff.

x

rich

 

[Rimbaud]

Are they/we?...oh..ok then!

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

hey! he was playing a joke on us! let's get him!!!

hey thanks a lot dudes,
you guys are like, intelligent and stuff.

x

rich

 

[egg_]

snakes
I think I see what you're getting at - sort of a reason is all very well, but the buck has to stop somewhere and ultimately everything we do and believe stems from emotion. I that right?
If that's what you're saying then I agree, but I don't see how it relates to my "The reason for the universe=The Universe" buzz

Ho ho I love these sorts of conversations

To me, there's two sorts of "why"s - first, the causal sort of why, where you seek to explain something by seeing what sort of events led up to it and indicating how the events are connected. On the other hand you have the purposive, teleological sort of "why"

So one why, the causal why, is 'how is this system caused, how can is be split up into smaller systems' like I was talking about earlier.
And the other, the purposive thing, is 'how is this system part of a larger system'
Is that right?

 

[Jimmy Magee]

And the other, the purposive thing, is 'how is this system part of a larger system'
Is that right?

Um, well, I'm not sure talk of systems is appropriate for it. It's more like the "meaning", or the "point" of life, that sort of thing. "WHY ARE WE HERE????" etc. Is there a purpose to our being here, or is it all random, or whatever. As I say, I think I conflated two different types into one, 'cause there's also the type of "why" where you wonder why a person did something, and the explanation has the form of "because they wanted such-and-such", which isn't causal, and isn't really the thing I'm talking about above neither (but you could call it "purposive", relating as it does to the purposes of the person, which is kind of why {in a causal sense} I conflated them). So we have three why's!

 

[egg_]

Um, well, I'm not sure talk of systems is appropriate for it.

I know I know sorry it's the best word I could find:

It's more like the "meaning", or the "point" of life, that sort of thing. "WHY ARE WE HERE????" etc.

So what do you mean by 'meaning', or 'point'? To me it seems like when someone says "WHY ARE WE HERE?" they are in fact asking "What is (my/all) life supposed to achieve?" or "How does (my/all) life fit into the greater scheme of things?"

So that'd mean that their question, in general terms, is a question about the relationship of a small thing (or system - i.e. their own or all life) to a big thing (or system - i.e. Everything, and everything else)

To which my answer would be, as before:
There is no greater scheme of things
There is no smaller scheme of things
The is only the Whole

See what I'm driving at?
Oh words, what difficult tools you are sometimes

 

[Jimmy Magee]

I know I know sorry it's the best word I could find:

So what do you mean by 'meaning', or 'point'? To me it seems like when someone says "WHY ARE WE HERE?" they are in fact asking "What is (my/all) life supposed to achieve?" or "How does (my/all) life fit into the greater scheme of things?"

So that'd mean that their question, in general terms, is a question about the relationship of a small thing (or system - i.e. their own or all life) to a big thing (or system - i.e. Everything, and everything else)

To which my answer would be, as before:
There is no greater scheme of things
There is no smaller scheme of things
The is only the Whole

See what I'm driving at?
Oh words, what difficult tools you are sometimes

So...you get that this type of "why" is different to the causal "why", but would claim that there is no answer to it?

 

[c4o]

42

ah! Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, best book ever read all four eh four times can't wait for the movie. Hammer and thongs.

 

[brassy]

what the hell is a jammypack??

Quicky guide to Philosophy.

Aristotle: 'Man is a rational animal.'

Descartes: 'I think, therefore I am.'

Nietzsche: 'God is dead.'

Buckrake: 'Strap on dat jammypack!'

 

[egg_]

So...you get that this type of "why" is different to the causal "why"

Well ... I think so
the special why=how is this part of one or more larger things
the causal why=how is this a result of one or more smaller things
Is that right?

If that is right, then I say not that "Why is the universe" has no answer, rather that it's a meaningless question because Everything, by definition, is not a part of any larger thing (and the causal why is also meaningless because neither is the universe made up of smaller things)

I guess it's kinda like snaky says (or I think that's what he might have been saying) - you can link reason to reason to reason but eventually you get to the end. For people you can say I did this cos of this cos of this, and eventually we get to a point where you just say 'I like this' and can go no further. It's the same with The Universe - this happens because of this because of this ... but then eventually you run out of 'whys' and any sort of 'why' question stops being meaningful

Hmmm maybe your special 'why' is the 'why' that you ask when you get to the end of the line. Is it? If it is then I think it's meaningless question, just an oxymoron, kinda like 'What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?' or 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?'