The Campaign Builder's Guild

This is a revival of the old thread from the former Dragon's Den.

For those of you unfamiliar with how it works, we simply discuss one philosohpical or political issue (mostly in the abstract rather than handling one specific current event / person) until we are bored or say all that we have to say, whereupon we move on to the next issue, either gradually or at the direct suggestion of one participant.

I'll open it up with an issue that came up over on another board here.  Is it possible to maintain a lawful good government?  (In fantasy, in the real world, whatever tack you want to take.)

I believe that in fantasy, anything can happen if you put some thought into why and how it does so. For instance, I have no problem with justifying the existance of a LG theocracy in D&D: In the fantasy world, there are distinct lines between good and evil, law and chaos. And you can maintain order and the best interest of the people at the same time. Why? Serving two ideological masters (as Cymmie put it) may be difficult, but LG people do it all the time. Otherwise, why would the alignment exist at all?

-Elven Doritos
Master of Dungeons

Absolutely.  I believe that there is very little room for debate of the issue in fantasy settings.  If people can accept fire-breathing dragons, is it that hard to accept that there may be a land where there are plentiful good people in government?

I mean, surely it's more interesting in a game of political intrigue to operate in a morally grey environment, but I personally find it dull (and characteristic of a strongly anti-establishment DM) when EVERY lawful good society you come across is on the verge of tyranny.

The question becomes more interesting when brought into the real world, though.

Quote from: Kalos MerI mean, surely it's more interesting in a game of political intrigue to operate in a morally grey environment, but I personally find it dull (and characteristic of a strongly anti-establishment DM) when EVERY lawful good society you come across is on the verge of tyranny.

The question becomes more interesting when brought into the real world, though.

But every LG society is on the verge of tyranny, just as every AA member is on the verge of a binge.  One step away from that fragile restraint(the good descriptor in the alignment) and you have tyranny.  That is half of the fun, from my perspective.  Though, I doubt anyone would call me anti-establishment.  !lol


When it comes to RL,  give me an example of a good government.  
Good in the accepted D&D definition.

Well, on the verge is the wrong term.  I meant "actually beginning to collapse into tyranny" as opposed to "could collapse into tyranny."  What term would be used in that case?

As far as the real world, it doesn't exist.  Of course, I don't think good PEOPLE exist.

Converting RL to D&D provides no real benefit, other than huffy opinions that cannot be justified. ;)

As for a LG society being on the verge of tyranny...

You describe a LN society, really. A LG society would accomplish good through operation of its own legal system, and work systematically and wholly to accomplish the betterment and enlightenment of all. A NG society would likely be similar, sure. But a NG society would accomplish its own agenda differently-- possibly taking a more personal and relative approach.

I see NG and NE as being rather murky territory, anyhow. They are gray between the cardinals, after all.

-Elven Doritos
Forensic Evidence

Ordinals, apparently, is the term that Cymro uses for LG/LE/CG/CE.  Cardinals are the NE/NG/LN/CN.

It makes sense, I suppose.  The Cardinal directions on a compass are purely in one direction, like the 'cardinal' alignments are purely in one moral/ethical direction.

I suppose that's another method of contention:
Are the "neutral" alignments the pure ones, or are Cymro's "ordinals" the true purities of philosophical devotion?

-Elven Doritos
They're both valid, really.

Well as I indicated before, I tend to view LG not as 'serving two masters', but serving a different sort of master than NG and a different one again than CG.

They share certain similar characteristics (general intention, certain limitations on behavior, etc.) but neither CG nor LG are simply a matter of mixing NG with CN/LN.

Quote from: Elven DoritosI suppose that's another method of contention:
Are the "neutral" alignments the pure ones, or are Cymro's "ordinals" the true purities of philosophical devotion?

-Elven Doritos
They're both valid, really.

The ordinals, or the corners, are not pure, they are alloys.  And uneven alloys at that.
Take the ever-suffering paladin.  If he goes too far one way(evil act), he suffers loss of powers.  If he goes too far the other way(chaotic act), the circumstances are much less severe, if even existent, by RAW.

Again, please correct me if I am the only person in the world who has viewed the alignments in this manner, but I've always seen each of the nine alignments as a 'pure' one.  To be sure, LG has some similarities to LN and others to NG, but not in such a manner as to be an 'alloy' of the two.  It has characteristics all its own, rather than being a 'slave of two masters'.

This is exactly how I have viewed alignments. Nine different representations of nine different ideologies. Some bear a resemblance to one another, and drawing even more abstract philosophies from it (Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos) is certainly possible, but it doesn't represent the actual alignments.

-Elven Doritos
Morally Questioned

This has the advantage of making paladins less abused by their DMs.  They never have to choose between the Lawful and the Good, they have to choose between the Lawful Good and the not Lawful Good.  There are still some moral ambiguities here and there (at least in my games), but it's rarely a form of player-abuse.

Getting back to societies (just for a sec), I'd like to state that there have not been any societies in real life that were not neutral on the moral axis (i.e. I state that LG, NG, CG, LE, NE and CE societies have no precedence in real life) though I'm not saying it is impossible for such societies to be founded in the future (after all, who am I to predict the future?). One might in fact argue that all societies so far have been true neutral, but I argue that at the very least there have been societies that tended to law and societies that tended to chaos (whether or not they tended enough to actually obtain the appropriate alignment I consider irrelevant). IMHO (very humble in this case, as this is hard to prove) the communist states tended to lawfulness, while many modern western societies (based in liberal ideologies) have chaotic tendencies (at least, relatively speaking, for I also think that societies on the whole tend to be more lawful than the individuals in them).

I plan to repost my book reviews here, as well as a new one: Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Anyone got a new subject to discuss in the meantime?

;) Túrin

Quote from: Kalos MerAgain, please correct me if I am the only person in the world who has viewed the alignments in this manner, but I've always seen each of the nine alignments as a 'pure' one.  To be sure, LG has some similarities to LN and others to NG, but not in such a manner as to be an 'alloy' of the two.  It has characteristics all its own, rather than being a 'slave of two masters'.

Yours is a valid way of looking at alignments, but not one that experience has shown me to be prevalent.  Or to work.  I have yet to see a player with a LG character not slide one way or the other.  And the slide is almost always into NG, and rarely LN.  This is why I opened up the rhokeon(paladin) in Altvogge to either LG or NG.

One could make an argument at least that there have been governments that were evil, Turin - Hitler's comes to mind most immediately, but any of the great genocidal dictatorships of the 20th and 21st centuries certainly would count.

I acknowledge, Cym, that my experience in D&D is only 10 years in comparison to what is more than likely double that in your case, but I've only ever seen paladins, for instance, fall towards one or the other when they are put into artificially complicated dilemmas by DMs who insist on "testing" them.  In most other cases, they can find a way to represent the Lawful Good view.  (I also have seen my view of alignment as the 'prevalent' one, but that's because somebody in my first major group taught it to me and I subsequently taught most of the people I ever played with.)

Further, recall that (at least from what my experience is), with the possible exception of Paladins, and Exalted characters, who are supposed to have strict moral codes, and certain types of Outsiders, who are supposed to be unreal exemplars, alignment doesn't dictate your every action - it indicates general (usually strong) tendencies.  Thus, yes, a lawful good character may occasionally choose a decision which benefits abstract Law or abstract Good instead of their harmonious unified incarnation, but this doesn't shift their alignment from the abstract absolute "lawful good" to the the equally abstract absolutes "neutral good" or "lawful neutral".

People such as Hitler and Stalin were arguably evil, but I'm not sure the societies they ruled were. Sure, they facilitated "hurting, oppressing and killing others" (the PHB's definition of evil, pg. 104), but the societies themselves didn't do so. Did, for example, German society suddenly shift alignment after the war? Is such a shift even possible?

I suppose this will just become a "yes-no" debate if we continue like this. Perhaps we should define society first. When speaking of the alignment of a society, do we mean the alignment of the majority of its people, the alignment that speaks from its laws or the alignment of (the people in) its government?

I will refrain from getting involved in the other debate for now.

;) Túrin

Quote from: TúrinPeople such as Hitler and Stalin were arguably evil, but I'm not sure the societies they ruled were. Sure, they facilitated "hurting, oppressing and killing others" (the PHB's definition of evil, pg. 104), but the societies themselves didn't do so. Did, for example, German society suddenly shift alignment after the war? Is such a shift even possible?

I suppose this will just become a "yes-no" debate if we continue like this. Perhaps we should define society first. When speaking of the alignment of a society, do we mean the alignment of the majority of its people, the alignment that speaks from its laws or the alignment of (the people in) its government?

I will refrain from getting involved in the other debate for now.

;) Túrin

OED defines society as people living together in an ordered community.

I would think we mean the alignment of a society when we speak of the alignment inherent in its laws.

Since the thread which spawned this topic was a discussion about a theocratic government, I assumed that by 'society' we were talking about the 'powers that be'.  Of course I did not mean to say that the whole of Germany underwent a wide number of alignment swings, but I think it clear that the laws/regime in power did.

Call me a pessimist, but I can't think of a society that has been Good.

I would call you a pessimist but then I would be one too.

Cymro, what's OED?

Oxford English Dictionary.

So we're looking at the laws. Could any of you, then, give me an example of a German law that stands out as particularly evil? A Russian one perhaps?

Quote from: TúrinSo we're looking at the laws. Could any of you, then, give me an example of a German law that stands out as particularly evil? A Russian one perhaps?

I would regard as evil any law curbing free speech or freedom of religion.  Both the Soviets and the Nazis were guilty of this.  But so was the state of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution.  

But did Germany and Russia actually have such laws (which is why I'm asking for specific examples)?

Quote from: TúrinBut did Germany and Russia actually have such laws (which is why I'm asking for specific examples)?

Well, I know it was illegal in Soviet Russia for the ROC to hold Mass.
And in Nazi Germany, Jewish religious observances were outlawed.

Both governments banned the expression of free speech.  Both destroyed books that were of forbidden topics.

It needn't be in the law itself if it is in the policy of the ones in power.  At least, that's my perspective.  Granted that actual laws tend to produce lengthier alignment tendencies than individual regimes can.

As far as limiting free speech or free expression of religion, on what grounds do you consider such a law to be evil?

Quote from: Kalos MerAs far as limiting free speech or free expression of religion, on what grounds do you consider such a law to be evil?

On the grounds that in my soul I am a Lockesian idealist.

But seriously, we were discussing D&D alignment, not Lockesian ethics. Any reason you think those laws are evil in that context?

Have any of you read Thomas Hobbes? I've been reading some of his Leviathan, anyone interested in discussing that?

The Leviathan is one of my favorite political texts.  It's worth a good read.

As a general rule, usually any text written after 476 AD (and most CERTAINLY any text written after 1453 AD) is not particularly interesting to me, but I make an exception for philosophers.  Hobbes is a fun dude.

"Hobbes is a fun dude."
Sic scripsit Marcus Crassus.

Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

Anyway, judging from the dates you gave, I assume you are referring to the Byzantine Empire being the only thing that intersts you after 476. How about the Renaissance scientist types (who, I might add, tended to write in Latin!)?

Since this is no hour to write a good review of a philosophical work worthy of a good review I will get back to you on Hobbes in a few days.

;) Túrin

Latin, my friend Turin, is a pale, pale reflection of the glorious Hellene tongue.  

You are, however, quite correct about the Byzantine Empire.  It is also in this year that the Hundred Years War draws to a close. :(

(I do like a few other things after 476 and before 1453.  In general, any culture whose language begins with the word 'old' or 'classical' is good by me too.  Old Norse, Old English, Classical Armenian...

I think we need to re-energize this thread with a new topic.  Evaluations of philosophers are good and all, but what about a topic more accessible to those who haven't had the pleasure of reading Hobbes et al?  (Maybe something that the high school students among us could participate in.)

I'm open to suggestion.

Like I mentioned in another thread, we recently had elections here. Perhaps we could discuss politics on a more day-to-day level?

Or we could go into some more general philosophical topic, such as the meaning of life, or religion (I have a high expectation of our forum with respect to being able to have a mature discussion without flaming).

EDIT: to make a start on the elections-topic: did any of you get the Dutch news back in 2002? You know, reovlutionary elections and the murder of Pim Fortuyn and all that.

i'm afraid that i do not have the luxury of receiving the news from anywhere outside my little chunk of hick-town, USA.  however, if I may suggest we discuss the purpose of literature?  I am fond of that topic, and reasonably capable of debating it.  lus, it has a seemingly universal application of this community.

Damn, I do believe I just made a statement with an inteeligent connotaion.

Dutch elections are more important to us here in the USA than most know, since our infrastructure, especially the mining industry, is quite entangled with your country.
The Netherlands are probably the most important non-English speaking part of the Anglo-Saxon collective, though if you guys blink, India will usurp your traditional power position.


As for the porpoise of lit'retoor, is it not to express those insanities it is socially unacceptable to scream out on the streets? :D

Alright, the importance of literature seems good to me.  (Politics is not one of those subjects which either the very young or the very academic of us is inclined to know much about, I'm afraid, Turin.)

Though me and CYMRO seem to be able to discuss it to some degree, so please ignore us while we continue that for a sec.

What exactly do you mean by the Anglo-Saxon collective? Doesn't that by definition only include English-speaking nations?

In what respect, exactly, do you think the Netherlands are important? Also, do you mean important for the Anglo-Saxon collective or important for the USA?

Quote from: TúrinThough me and CYMRO seem to be able to discuss it to some degree, so please ignore us while we continue that for a sec.

What exactly do you mean by the Anglo-Saxon collective? Doesn't that by definition only include English-speaking nations?

In what respect, exactly, do you think the Netherlands are important? Also, do you mean important for the Anglo-Saxon collective or important for the USA?

The Anglo-Saxon collective includes:
Britain(obviously)
Netherlands(because the House of Orange saved Britain from internal collapse twice)
USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India(too long the jewel of empire not to have been tainted :D )
South Africa
Bits of Germany(especially Hesse and Brunswick)
Rhodesia
Much of the Caribbean
Liberia

It is the influence of the culture that defines the Collective.  And a tenacity for withholding real power from those outside its ever shifting borders.
America is in the twilight days of hegemony in the Collective.  Soon, India will be the superstar, with us and Britain in the supporting roles.  Just as with the Monroe Doctrine, Britain became the second to us.  You Dutch are the important financial ballast, as well as a good ethical weathervane.  We would be a footnote in history without the House of Orange.

That list feels rather arbitrary. Why do you call it a Collective?

See, the real-world politics is good and all, but the poor thread doesn't seem to stay afloat when only two people on the boards are interested.

Well, since me and Cymro are enjoying ourselves, the task falls to you to breathe new life in this thread by opening up a new philosophical subject to discuss. So go right ahead. :P

Quote from: TúrinThat list feels rather arbitrary. Why do you call it a Collective?

It is a term that came out of the late 1940s when the Union Now movement sought to bring those nations, and a few others, under one umbrella government.Ã,  The U.N. movement overshadowed it, but as a backseat driving political force, the Collective has staying power.Ã,  Even Liberia, the unwanted stepchild of America, is feeling its power.
I think not uncoincidental that the President of Liberia spoke to the U.S. Senate this week.Ã, 

Philosophical conundrum of the week:

Predestiny? Or determinism?

Quote from: Elven DoritosPhilosophical conundrum of the week:

Predestiny? Or determinism?

Predeterminestiny rules all!

Predeterminestiny, eh? It's so brilliant it just might work!

Quote from: Elven DoritosPredeterminestiny, eh? It's so brilliant it just might work!

Resistance is useless!

Predestination.  Hands down.  It's so hopeless when you try to comprehend it, it makes me depressed and therefore happy.

Quote from: Natural 20Predestination.  Hands down.  It's so hopeless when you try to comprehend it, it makes me depressed and therefore happy.

I think someone needs the definition to "depression"... >_>

Quote from: Elven Doritos

Quote from: Natural 20Predestination.  Hands down.  It's so hopeless when you try to comprehend it, it makes me depressed and therefore happy.

I think someone needs the definition to "depression"... >_>

Maybe he meant oppression.  It seems to make a lot of people happy...

No, I meant depression.  Maybe content instead of happy though...

Here's another bogus topic - for each alignment, think of a stereotypical governing style - then take that to its extreme such that it eats its own tail and destroys itself.

For an example, I'll take neutral good. By the RAW, good is concerned with altruism and helping people. Neutral good doesn't care about the means - whether freedom to let people make themselves happy, or order and regimentation to prevent oppression - it will do what seems needful to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

In an ideal, the neutral good government tries to pass laws to reduce evil behavior, while promoting prosperity and well-being for all. In the extreme, it becomes so concerned with providing for the material needs of all that it creates a kind of enforced altruism. Whether via high taxes or required charitable efforts, they seek to bring well-being to even the least of their subjects.

This ends up being self-defeating when the required charity ends up favoring short-term benefits to the weakest members of society over longer-term investments to generate long term prosperity. The results are anything but good - stagnation, decay, poverty, weakness.

The idea is that each alignment starts with some ideal, but in pursuing it blindly, without heed to the real-world consequences of their choices, they end up undermining their own goals.

Whoa, my brain just melted...

QuoteThe idea is that each alignment starts with some ideal, but in pursuing it blindly, without heed to the real-world consequences of their choices, they end up undermining their own goals.

So this explains why paladins, as represented on the wotcee boards, are always killing babies...

Quote from: CYMROSo this explains why paladins, as represented on the wotcee boards, are always killing babies...

Just so - they've gone so far into Lawful Good that they've come out on the other side.

If first part of aligment is Law - Chaos, it would point towards society's perception of such things. I claim that societies are not chaotic (they can not be called societies if they are truly in chaos). Even in anarchy, there is an order of some sort be it only 'might makes it right' or ganging up as a looting groups. Simply, humans don't know how to function in chaos, but they always set up groups and those groups always operate with some social rule-set, often unwritten.

This would suggest that Lawful person would infact follow the rules of society, what ever they might be, while chaotic would discard these rules. This would mean, that in society in anarchy, orderly monk practicing self-meditation is actually a chaotic character, not ready to give in the rules of society.

The second part seems to be more personal part. Good - Evil. It would seem to be as personal choice, but when inspected more closely, it turns out to be reflection towards the same social taboos and rules. Your 'Goodness or Evilness' is always determined by other people and the ruleset they they use, are rules and taboos of the society. You can not be nothing but Good, if you follow the rules and same time you can not be anything that Lawful, while following the rules and vice versa. After all, greed, selfsatisfaction and altruism don't come to play here, only how accurately you match the societies rules and taboos.

Thus I submit that there is only two aligments: Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil and they tell you absolutely nothing about personality until you examine the society that set the rules and guidelines in first place.

Quote from: CYMRO

QuoteThe idea is that each alignment starts with some ideal, but in pursuing it blindly, without heed to the real-world consequences of their choices, they end up undermining their own goals.

So this explains why paladins, as represented on the wotcee boards, are always killing babies...

That would actually be DM-meanness. Don't tell your players, it'll be our secret. ;)

Quote from: Elven DoritosPhilosophical conundrum of the week:

Predestiny? Or determinism?

Wait... do either of these options afford the conscious individual any degree of control over his own destiny? Quantum physics and numerous random-number generator tests imply that we, as individuals, have a greater impact on the world around us than it has on us. The world runs more on the Dune quantum-possibilities model than on the Foundation calcuable-probability model. Don't believe me? Ask yourself which future sells better.

I was also surprised that ElDo didn't give us any actual non-deterministic option: predestiny is largely just religiously flavoured determinism (sorry if this sounds offensive, this is not intended to give either of these words a negative connotation).

So how about free will or [insert fancy name for free will-ism] instead of predestiny/determinism?

Túrin

Quote from: Túrin

Quote from: CYMRO

QuoteThe idea is that each alignment starts with some ideal, but in pursuing it blindly, without heed to the real-world consequences of their choices, they end up undermining their own goals.

So this explains why paladins, as represented on the wotcee boards, are always killing babies...

That would actually be DM-meanness. Don't tell your players, it'll be our secret. ;)

Luckily for me, in Altvogge I broke the paladin down int little bits, fused the decent parts onto the cleric and burned the rest, burying the ashes at an undisclosed crossroads.

You know, in the original paladin legends, at least one of them (Malagigi, I think) summoned demon(s). Huzzah Ashtaroth!

Quote from: WormwoodIf first part of aligment is Law - Chaos, it would point towards society's perception of such things. I claim that societies are not chaotic (they can not be called societies if they are truly in chaos). Even in anarchy, there is an order of some sort be it only 'might makes it right' or ganging up as a looting groups. Simply, humans don't know how to function in chaos, but they always set up groups and those groups always operate with some social rule-set, often unwritten.

This would suggest that Lawful person would infact follow the rules of society, what ever they might be, while chaotic would discard these rules. This would mean, that in society in anarchy, orderly monk practicing self-meditation is actually a chaotic character, not ready to give in the rules of society.

The second part seems to be more personal part. Good - Evil. It would seem to be as personal choice, but when inspected more closely, it turns out to be reflection towards the same social taboos and rules. Your 'Goodness or Evilness' is always determined by other people and the ruleset they they use, are rules and taboos of the society. You can not be nothing but Good, if you follow the rules and same time you can not be anything that Lawful, while following the rules and vice versa. After all, greed, selfsatisfaction and altruism don't come to play here, only how accurately you match the societies rules and taboos.

Thus I submit that there is only two aligments: Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil and they tell you absolutely nothing about personality until you examine the society that set the rules and guidelines in first place.

according to this, then, all animals would qualify as lawful. im not very well-versed on the subject (certainly not enough to hold up against argument for very long, unfortunately), but my understanding is that animals follow a system thats been dubbed "erratic retaliator". i also understand that this sysem was adapted by almost all tribal human cultures in real life (im not entirely sure how that would translate to any given fantasy setting, but i imagine that "humanoid" could replace "human").

although, it could be argued that, since the human(oid) cultures developed deeper then just the Erratic Retaliator system, there was more room for them to break from the cultural standatds. i dont think this aegument could apply to animals, however.

Quote from: TúrinSo how about free will or [insert fancy name for free will-ism] instead of predestiny/determinism?

How about compatibilist pseudo-desteriminism?

compati-what now?!
I've half a mind to wash your mouth out with soap!

Sorry, you're right, that should have been compatibilist pseudo-predesteriminism.

What was I thinking?

*facepalm*
although I have to admit I've got no room to talk after my post on how quantum physics=magic.

Quote from: beejazz*facepalm*
although I have to admit I've got no room to talk after my post on how quantum physics=magic.

No, sometimes quantum buggers even magic.
See Terry Pratchett's Pyramids, Thief of Time, etc.

Quote from: TurinSo how about free will or (insert fancy name for free will-ism) instead of predestiny/determinism?

probabilistic[/i] universe, which combines elements of both order and chaos.  Alas, adopting a middle-ground between the two does not achieve the elusive and sought-after self-determinism, it merely presents us with the limitations of both systems.

So for me, it is no longer a question of whether such a thing as free will exists.  Now, it is a matter of determining that which, in the absence of free will, motivates us to act.

There is free will. Electrons exist in all possible positions until they (or their effects) are observed, at which time they collapse into a single position. Random number generator experiments show that the single position of the observed electron *is* affected by intent. This has certain implications in the brain's neural electrical impulses... namely that we control them and not the other way around.

But what instigates our intent and subsequent control?  My point is that that which is without cause is acted without meditation - without any reason whatsoever for having done it.  Without a reason, it is not an act of the autonomy, but of uncoordinated spontaneity.  The fact that we control said electrons does not detract from the fact that something determines our intention to observe; if not, then our observation is random and therefore not an act of the free (as chaos is fundamentally limited by its basic nature).

If I can be supplied an alternative to the caused/uncaused dichotomy, then I may be persuaded otherwise, but as it stands... free will doesn't seem to have any legs to stand on.

Rebuttal?

Let's see... between a caused/uncaused dichotomy?
Let's see... and the fact that real life functions simultaneously on both and niether doesn't bother you? The distinction of phenomena (and all their consequences) is just a part of the subjective way we view the universe. Let's divide people into men and women. On this criteria, I am exactly the opposite of my sister, and we have nothing in common. Now let's divide people into my family and those outside. Suddenly, my sister and I are identical! But how can this be? Just two seconds ago, we were opposite! When and why and how you divide concepts is preceded by what questions you ask. For example, who is a member of this family? Who is a member of this gender? And so on and so forth. The reality that there is no binary divide between that with precedent and that without precedent shows only that you are asking the wrong question.

The question is not whether a phenomenon is preceded, but by what it is preceded by. The question is not whether there is a logical progression, but what that logical progression is. The question is not whether things are... you get the idea.

My point is that consciousness transcends dichotomy in and of itself. It is the thing that collapses those things that are collapsible into a dichotomy to begin with.

I've got to go look up the hommunculus logic before I can go any further with this line of thought, but believe me: No amount of logic will hit any "source" for logic, and no amount of randomness would ever be able to find itself random. Consciousness has niether beginning nor end... like the snake swallowing its own tail... it is the paradox of self-awareness that trumps "precedent". Consciousness is its own precedent, encompasses all possibilities within itself, and can therefore decide which of all possibilities it allows to happen.

I'm having a hard time finding the words I am looking for to describe the phenomenon.

I'll be back with more, though.

QuoteRandom number generator experiments show that the single position of the observed electron *is* affected by intent.

what[/i]?? Do you have a link or reference for this?

Let's see...
No links.
I've read it in a couple of books, but...
There's also a movie called "What the (bleep) do we know?"
Some of it is crap, but some of it is some really freaking trippy science.

Let's see...
No links.
I've read it in a couple of books, but...
There's also a movie called "What the (bleep) do we know?"
Some of it is crap, but some of it is some really freaking trippy science.

i've heard of that, but i can't trust anything that mixes crap with trippy science. it makes it really hard to tell the two apart. i guess i'll google search it.

do you have the titles to the books? i mean, if it's encoded into the universe that personal intent affects subatomic particles, i'll buy the book that explains how.

Quote from: brainfacei've heard of that, but i can't trust anything that mixes crap with trippy science. it makes it really hard to tell the two apart. i guess i'll google search it.

do you have the titles to the books? i mean, if it's encoded into the universe that personal intent affects subatomic particles, i'll buy the book that explains how.

I can never remember where I read things.
In terms of the movie, you can go to special features and interviews and pretty easily sort out who's shitting you by what they say... The woman who claims to "channel" one of the inhabitants of "Lemuria"? Crap. The actually cited walkthroughs of semi-famous experiments, particle-wave duality, etc? Gold.

I do remember first learning the concept of particle-wave duality and the idea that an observed electron behaves differrently than an unobserved electron from a book called The Science of God (a title I wouldn't normally trust, but a very good read)... after that it was a trail of bibliographies through the rest of my Freshman year.

I've really lost interest in the science end of things, and have since moved to a more existencialist reading list. Kierkegaard, Jung, Sartre, etc. That and the usual ancient myths and religion obsession.

I haven't thought this hard since I lost my Sesame Street puzzle book!  

I will concede that the application of a dichotomy of that which is caused and that which is not is, like most dichotomies, ultimately erroneous, and that using such a term is perhaps not the wisest of choices.  But I will not concede that there are such things that transcend the presence or absence of precedent.  That is, though consciousness might not be bound within a causal or acausal system, it does not inhabit a universe wherein things that are neither causal nor acausal exist.  It may encompass them both, but it is not beyond them.

However, like you, for me it is not a question of the existence of precedent, but the nature of the precedent.  So what, then, is the precedent?  To quote your own words: "consciousness is its own precedent, encompasses all possibilities within itself, and can therefore decide which of all possibilities it allows to happen."  To suggest that consciousness is its own precedent, and not mention anything but consciousness as its own precedent, suggests a veritable mobius strip - an eternal return of the mind: "Awareness birthed itself, and will compel and sire itself forevermore."

Such a suggestion is, I think we can all agree, preposterous.  The notion has implications not only for the origin of our own consciousness, but for reality as an absolute.  It implies that, assuming a finite reality with a definite genesis, consciousness predates that reality, or that, in a universe without beginning, the mind is as old as the universe itself.  From a biological standpoint, this seems terribly unlikely (though admittedly possible).  There was a point at which we were unaware, and at some subsequent point in time, we attained a measure of awareness.  Whether or not a causal dichotomy applies (and again, I will concede that in such a context it may not), the fact is that at some point consciousness was "born", and at the instant of its birth it was incapable of self-reference and self-determination, as it was only in successive instants that it had a "self" to refer to.  In that first instant, when consciousness was sired, the causes which sired it and the reality that encompassed it defined the parameters in which it could operate and compel itself to operate subsequently.

For was there not a point at which the orbouros' tail was free of its own maw?  Only when it contrived to bite itself did it evolve from an object of linearity to a symbol of cyclical eternity.  It is like the idea of perpetual motion: in order for an engine to operate under such principles, it must first be activated.  Only then may it compel itself to remain in motion.  In such a way did the creation of consciousness define the boundaries within which said consciousness might otherwise "freely" orchestrate its own actions.

And once the mind achieved self-dependence, its liberation from the base machinations of an instinctive mind served only to constrain it within the parameters of its own desires, which in turn were constrained by the parameters designed by the events that inspired their genesis and, inescapably, the laws of the universe that contextualised such events.

So the mind, which compels itself in the present, was itself compelled in the past.  Thus, though consciousness defines the ultimate emergent possibility through perception, as you suggest, it was ultimately itself the result of an emergent possibility, and its every act is beholden not only to said emergence, but all manifest possibilities it has encountered or defined in past, and ever will subsequently.

It is therefore bound not only by the laws of its environment (indeterminate though they may be), but by its own internal laws, which are presumed in their intricacy to be the phenomena of a â,¬Å"free willedâ,¬Â entity, but are simply (in my opinion) so complex, convoluted and self-impelling (The Eternal Golden Braid springs instantly to mind, and with your evident intellect I am certain you will have understood it far better than I if you have read it) that we cannot ascertain the nature of their constituents.

â,¬Å"â,¬Â¦and [consciousness] can therefore decide which of all possibilities it allows to happen.â,¬Â

I won't deny that this is so (nor will I affirm it), but the fact that consciousness can make such decisions does not mean that such a decision is an act of liberty.  Thus, the debate comes full circle, and I pose the query once more: What drives the decision?  What impetus propagates the emergent possibility?

(Like you, it appears that the right explanation escapes me, and presuming your argument is not quite as you intended, Iâ,¬,,¢d like to know your intended point when you do find the words)

I am thus far not swayed, but I will add that while I remain convinced of my own correctness, your arguments are so persuasive that more than a quiver of uncertainty begins to rear its ugly (but not unwelcome) head.  I will concede without reluctance that you may very well be right, and if so, I will without hesitation convert, as it were.  But for now, I remain supplicate to an ideological reality free of liberty...

Any thoughts?

[spoiler=Help!!!]Seriously, if you have sufficient evidence to change my mind, Iâ,¬,,¢d love to hear it.  Only an idiot or a coward would prefer the absence of free will when the phenomenon does in fact exist, and Iâ,¬,,¢d like to think that I fill neither of those categories.[/spoiler]

The sucky thing is, now that I've started this debate, I might have to finish it.

Unless you absolutely pwn me (that is such an awkward word) and finish it yourself, which is a perfectly viable option and probably pretty likely.  I'd personally like to do the pwning, but hey, commoners can't be choosers. They ain't got the Will for it.

Many people misunderstand infinity.
A one inch line is measured in the finite distance of an inch.
But there is still an infinite number of points on that line.

Likewise, consciousness is not chronologically infinite, nor (always) chronologically the precedent for the outside world, but is the existencial precedent of all things, itself included. A rock is not a rock without someone to call it a rock. In fact, coming back to the whole collapsible wave function bit, this might even be true in the literal sense.

Coming back around to free will, though... we really need to decide what it's free of before we decide whether it is free of it, am I right? I would define it as being free of external casualty.

Sartre gives an excellent example of why it is you who choose in any given situation. A mother's only son, in a time of war, must choose to fight for his country or live and take care of his mother. Technically, he could ask for help in this decision. He could ask for help from his teacher (who will suggest war) or from his priest (who will suggest the opposite). But this person already knows what the two of them will say. Who he decides to ask is determined by himself. He already knows which rationalizations are more important to him. Logic and external casualty only appear to apply in a very superficial sense... Which logic or casualty he embraces is still his decision.

As for the idea that the consciousness is pre-birthed by reality... I see consciousness as self-awareness. Anything acted on before that point is not consciousness, therefore consciousness is still never acted on.

Argh!  Darn you Goedel!

And in that we agree wholeheartedly.  Consciousness preceeds all things for it defines all things - in a sense it is the uncaused first cause.

But my question remains: how does he decide.  What within himself causes him to decide upon whatever logic or causality he deems appropriate?  If the mind is the final arbiter of all things, what is the force of consciousness within consciousness that defines its own arbitration?

Saying that consciousness is free of external causality and defining that as free will is an issue of semantics.  It is inarguable that relative to said causality, it is indeed free, but that does not make it fundamentally so.  Within consciousness, the nature of the very same constrains it to act; not always as expected (rarely so, in fact), but always in whatever spectrum manifest inevitable by virtue of the bounds of its operation.

The question, again, is what are these bounds of operation?  How does one, in the presence of choice, come to choose?  You have eliminated external influence as the final arbiter of action, so what in our own minds causes us to act as we do?

In defining its relationship to itself, not in defining its relationship to the external, may we decide if it is free, and that is a realm heretofore relatively unexplored.  But we may at least state comfortably that yes, the mind is a force preceded and defined by itself.

In that, it is free.

(I always hate when an argument becomes an issue of relativity, which just about every intelligent philosophical debate I've ever had eventually became.  "Within this paradigm it is free; within this paradigm, maybe not".  I suppose that's simply testament to the inevitability of subjectivity.  Goedel warned by about this!!!)

I don't think I'll be continuing this debate, because if I do I'll start to wane enthusiasm.  Much better I quit now, while my appreciation for the exchange remains.  Thank ye, Sir Beejazz, for thine wizened repartee.  It hath been stimulating and illuminating and, though in some regards we are opposed, I acquiesce to the plausibility of thine contention.

And all things considered, I'd rather like to think you are right.

Good show.

0_o...

Wait... But that makes no sense. Beejazz doesn't make valid points. Argh!

So, in the light of the loss of interest in will...

The Bible: Massive Existencial Allegory?

Let's see if I can say something about free will. At this point I have no idea what I'm going to write next, so please forgive any chaotic arguments that don't seem to lead anywhere. If I don't hit anything interesting, I won't post this at all.

As always in a philosophical debate, we first need to decide on a definition of terms. If we don't, we will have a long argument only to eventually conclude, as Salacious Angel mentioned, that it depends on where you start reasoning (paradigm, as he called it, but I'll avoid compicated terminology here where I can because English is not my mother tongue).

What is free will? Is it really the absence of external causality in making decisions? If this is so (I think I'll want to give a different definition later) then free will certainly doesn't exist. Continuing along the line of arguments made earlier, consciousness is created by (at least chronologically) but more importantly exists within the context of external reality. (We do agree that there exists a reality beyond our own perception of it, do we? That would be a whole other debate.) This means that the actions we can take (and thus the decisions we can make) are ultimately limited by what reality allows us to do. For example, reality determines that sound only stretches so far, and thus I can not (make the decision to) talk to you directly now, but need to use this indirect menthod of communication via a forum. Similarly, physical truths determine that I can not (make the decision to) walk upwards into the sky: gravity binds me to this earth. Of course, technology can help me with these things, but some things will always remain impossible, I think you'll agree (take being in multiple places at once, for example).

If we agree on the above, we agree on the following: if free will is the ability to make decisions unhindered by external causality, then free will does not exist. Now, to me, the examples I gave to prove this statement are not a proof that there is no free will. I didn't state that making a decision (freely?) is impossible, I simply showed that not all decisions can be taken, which under our current definition would mean free will does not exist. I conclude: our current definition does not work; it does not describe free will accurately.

As I suggested in the last paragraph, what I'd really like to see from my definition of free will is that it enlightens us of whether or not there is such a thing as "making a decision". Let me try to give a new definition:

free will is the ability of our consciousness to make a decision, that is: to affect its own thoughts or actions in a "decisive" way, that is: the consciousness makes something happen inside or outside of the body that was not already definitively determined to happen (by external causality?).

I'm not sure about that last condition in parentheses, but overall I think this is a better definition of free will than the one that was given earlier. Reading back on my definition, the last part ("not definitively determined") catches my eye. Summarizing (that is, roughly speaking), I think I have defined free will as the absence of determinism. I can't say I'm entirely happy with this: free will has again become the absence of something else, rather than being something in its own right, while the latter seems more intuitive.

All of this seems to hinge on the question of positive vs. negative freedom. This is an issue that was raised by David Hume IIRC. In short, positive freedom is about being "free to", that is having the freedom to do something, while negative freedom is about being "free of", that is not being hindered by something. We seem to have focused on a negative definition of freedom here, and hence a negative definition of free will. If anyone can come up with a positive definition, I'd like to see it.

I'd like to see some feedback to all the things I've said above, perhaps some support for my definition or some other possible definitions of free will, before we will explore what this (or another) new definition means for our discussion topic ("does free will exist?"). So let's discuss this definition before we draw conclusions from it.

I'm also stopping here to prevent this post from crossing the line of being huge in size (now it's just big I hope). ;)

Túrin

"Free to..."
"Free to decide the effect of many possible causes, both internal and external?"
As I said before, it isn't that the outside universe is without effect... it is that the "inside" universe is the final arbiter...
And, IMHO, it's hard to define what anything is without in the same stroke defining what it isn't.

Oh, and being in multiple places simultaneously is more than just likely... it's probably true. Or would be if you weren't collapsing your wave function. Quantum physics is hilarious.

My definition of free will:

1. I am able to perceive the world, understand it, and make choices or decisions based on those perceptions and my own nature, goals, beliefs, and values.

2. These decisions are mine in the sense that they are not compelled upon me by anything except my own nature, goals, beliefs, and values.

3. I am able to put these decisions into action (successfully or not).

If all of these things are true, then I hold that I have free will in the only ways that matter. This is true whether my nature, goals, beliefs, etc. are deterministic, non-deterministic, partially deterministic, or whatever. Also irrespective of whether my "true self" is material, non-material, or some combination.

I also hold that these conditions are manifestly true, and therefore it is obvious that I have free will in all the ways that matter.

Quote from: beejazzThere is free will. Electrons exist in all possible positions until they (or their effects) are observed, at which time they collapse into a single position. Random number generator experiments show that the single position of the observed electron *is* affected by intent. This has certain implications in the brain's neural electrical impulses... namely that we control them and not the other way around.

in other words, personal intent controls subatomic particles, and in doing so, may even possibly affect atoms, molecules, or even more?

if thats what is implied by that statement, then i dont see how its a new idea, whatsoever; near as i can tell, its the basis of any religomagickal belief system. if im not mistaken, that was the basis of Aleister Crowley's law of Thelema, "Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law".

i still don't buy that. that requires some sort of interaction between the particle and the person's brain. otherwise the information can't be transferred. and coherent interaction, so somehow the particle not only responds to intent but responds correctly.
Like, if that shit's true, we're living in simulation space and there's a bug in the system.

Meh... a person has more "control" the more the outcome of something relies on electrical impulses... mostly impulses with observable outcomes, at that. Mostly, this would have to do with in-brain activity and such. It might have further application, but this would be highly limited and maybe take years and years of training. Internal monitoring and control is something most people practice in daily life.

I just wanted to get the "scientific" preconceptions about the "mechanistic" universe out of the way quickly. With or without free will, such preconceptions are detrimental to meaningful thought... or at least the idea that there is any meaning. Or that you (if there can be said to be a "you") have play any meaningful role on a larger scale.

Quote from: brainfacei still don't buy that. that requires some sort of interaction between the particle and the person's brain. otherwise the information can't be transferred. and coherent interaction, so somehow the particle not only responds to intent but responds correctly.
Like, if that shit's true, we're living in simulation space and there's a bug in the system.

The idea of force acting on our universe from the outside is actually pretty staple the further into it you get. Gravity, for example, acts on our universe from another... "leaking" so to speak... which is why it's so much weaker than magnetism.

But before we accept the whole gravity thing as writ, isn't string/superstring theory (as I presume you are basing this on) largely theoretical and unverified?  Not that I discount its merit (and I am actually a proponent), but, given its apparent unfalsifiability, is it viable enough that we can use gravity as an example of extracosmic phenomena?

But back on the subject of free will, I agree, by and large, with Snakefing's qualifications for free will.  Ultimately, it is only to the detriment of our own existence (or "meaningful thought", as Beejazz astutely put it) to assume the absence of free will.  It is the very same notion that motivates criminal's to defend their actions based on genetic predisposition: man is then no longer accountable for his actions.

Such is also the danger of utilitarianism.  Pure analysis and logical process merely destroy identity.  I like to think that through our possession of consciousness we ascend to become more than the sum of our parts, but for the absolutely calculative mind, this cannot be so.

Thus, only in presupposing free will may we make true progress, ethically or morally; to deny it is to defy the ultimate qualification of our humanity, and to render ourselves little more than the mindless matter that suffuses us.

This week's question:

"What is love?"

[spoiler=Bad song from that SNL sketch]Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.[/spoiler]

That is possibly one of the hardest subjective questions one could ever ask.

I ain't gonna touch that one with a ten foot pole...

The question itself is more interesting the answer, since defining love with words is like trying to paint a song or write a picture: the medium is wholly inaccurate for the concept it is trying to convey.

Short answer: I'm not touching it either, but because the nature of the subject makes the question inadequate, and any answer cannot cover the fullness, or even a significant part, of the nature of love. Love is really beyond human comprehension and vocalization, unless you are in it. (I never refer to love in the past tense - you don't fall out of love, and if you do, then you weren't in love in the first place OR you consciously suppressed it.)

*bump*

In response to ElDo's last question, I think we can start at one of the definitions given to Lysis, by Socrates:

"Good is friends with that which is neither good nor evil, by reason of evil" (roughly paraphrased; i hope the intent shows through).

In example, the body (neutral) loves medicine (good), for the cause of ridding sickness (evil).

This can be used, for most practical purposes, as a working definition, but I think we should be able to improve upon it. thoughts, anybody?

edit- I didn't notice this last page.... anyways, i agree with Xathan, at least as far as the emotions created by the concept are concerned. Those emotions truely are beyond definition, and-- as all emotions-- are incredibly subjective. That said, I think we can work with the concept itself, and leave the emotions it creates agreed upon by unspoken collective experience.

Damn, this site really presses the use of my vocabulary....

Definitions of love. Hmmm... how about "love is poorly defined because the English language sucks ass."

The Greeks had what? Five words for love? And each had a specific meaning distinct from the others. We have one and it's a catch all for sex, family, friendship, romance, and favorite foods.

You know that thing where eskimos are supposed to have so many words for "snow?" What does the ambiguity in the definition of love tell us about ourselves, regardless of the meaning of love itself?

Edit: In case you couldn't tell yet, I am to love as Rael is to elves.

Quote from: beejazzEdit: In case you couldn't tell yet, I am to love as Rael is to elves.

(http://trillian.irsoft.de/emoticons/emot-1254578283.png)

You have no idea how funny that is.

 :ontopic: I also say that you'll need a stronger definition that that. And for lack of such, I will pose an answer to my interpretation of said question.

If we understand humans to be animals, and yes, that's a tangent in itself, then we can understand that the prime directive of our being is that of survival and reproduction. (Survival itself is an extension of reproduction, but I think it helps to see it as a concept in itself.)

As social beings, we meet prime directive through the forming of social structures and groups.

My interpretation of ElDo's mighty question is: "Why is there a unique emotion of romantic love and does it differ from other emotions in nature?"

As social beings with the goal of reproduction, it becomes absolutely important as beings to build strong bonds with the opposite gender with the intention of making babies. Our body and subconscious has a profound and clear impact on our action through various things which I call "feelings." If we need food, our body introduces the feeling of hunger so we want to eat. On this same note we often have an almost instinctual reaction to those who we perceive as potential mates. Two feelings come to mind, which I will call "horny" and "romantic." Feeling horny is a very basic feeling coupled with the baby making process but romantic feeling is a bit more complex. Once again I will emphasize the social aspect of humanity, for it is the sociological structure which makes it valuable to have a repeat-mate, or a mate that doesn't hate your guts. The feeling of romantic love, in my eyes, in then a subconscious/bodily reaction to a mate that suggests that time should be spent reinforcing bonds with the person to aid the prime directive. In this, I'd say that there is no real difference between romantic love and other feelings in nature, but there is in power. Because of how close it falls to the basic need to have children, it is a very powerful feeling and one that is very dominant because of how difficult it is to sate.

Clearly my ideas draw upon others, and thus there is plenty to debate. And honestly, I don't have that much experience discussing philosophy. Thoughts?

that theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

I think it might be best if ElDo clarifies the question, but either way, I wouldn't mind discussing the concept itself.

Since the question was half a year ago...

How about this.

"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

I think it might be best if ElDo clarifies the question, but either way, I wouldn't mind discussing the concept itself.

Excellent point, PenguinDragon. Based on this, we must conclude (IMHO) that a conception of love based on Darwinism is severely limited. Which is good, because such an interpretation has always seemed rather "cold" to me.

I'm withholding any further discussion of the topic for now.

Túrin

Quote from: Elven Doritos"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

Actually ElDo, I'm pretty sure Rael hit that one more accurately than the question he was addressing.

Since it's been collectively stated that one cannot hope to state what love is in the english language, I would like to raise the question of whether or not anyone feels it is possible to properly represent love via art?  Whether it be poetry, song, sculpture, paint, or a crayon drawing on a napkin.

I am of the opinion that someone who is especially skilled in an art from might be able to come close to showing their own feelings of "Love", but to form a universal idea in any corporeal (or musical) form that applies to everyone is damn near impossible.

Thoughts?  I like this thread, I'd like to see some discussion. :D

Quote from: Natural 20

Quote from: Elven Doritos"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

I think there's some confusion here. First, the answer to "Why is love?" (a frustratingly imcomplete sentence, IMHO) that was given is a theory, and it breaks apart with any form of "love" that does not lead to reproduction (same-sex romantic love being the prime example).

Ontop of that, I disagree with the concept of love not being able to be expressed in the english language. I think the confusion here is between the concept itself, and the emotions caused by the concept. While I don't care for these definitions, a good way to make the distinction is that the former is affectionate endearment, whereas the latter is the affections of the endearment.

for many reasons (aside from the obvious reasons stated by others, there's also the strong degree of subjectivity), i have absolutely no desire to discuss the emotions caused by the concept. The concept itself, however, i would find stimulating to discuss.

Interestingly enough, while I still choose not to use the definitions given for the distinction, they show a perspective on the nature of the fourth grade terms "like" nad "Like" that seems to imply the two terms aren't that much different, after all...

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

Are you sure? If I see a restaurant, I can become hungry, though it is not the restaurant that I want to eat. Human mind and subconscious mind are interconnected, clearly. As humans we have power over the subconscious through action. Being able to distort sexual desire is one of the easiest things to do, as we can see through fetishes and cultural biases. If a person, for one reason or another, finds the same sex attractive, it builds as it reaches further into the subconscious. Just because our emotional responses are tuned to provide feedback on our lives does not be they cannot be altered. A great example of this is the feeling of loneliness, which corresponds to a need for companionship. Through simple effort, one can focus on the presence of other people in life and stop feeling lonely. So, no, I think that "weird" sexual activity is to be expected in a race as diverse and conscious as ourselves.

And yes, "Why is love" is a more suitable question for my answer. To truly express an emotion, I believe the arts must be used (sorta). I took the question "What is love?" in philosophical stride as "What is [the nature of] love?" ;)


And as to Turin's comment: I feel that many things begin to feel "cold" when you look at them from a scientific perspective. The concept that our universe may, one day, collapse in upon itself obliterating all traces of our existence is not a comforting thought. However, try not to dismiss something based on unease, but rather, approach it from a "warmer" level. If science is cold, then spirituality is warm and while I'm not going to go into spirituality, I'll go one step down.

As animals we can be seen to have internal reactions to our environment that benefit survival. However, one must never forget the amazing beauty and power that we have reached as a race. We are not controlled by our emotions, but rather are taught by them and guided by them. Our conscious mind lets us feel love and be filled with the joy of it. We can express ourselves, spreading this joy like a ripple on a pond. And in the end, we can understand that what we feel is a function of who we are and allow our ecstasy to bring us to a new level of enlightenment and understanding of true happiness. It is this which sets us apart from the beasts and makes us great. To realize a flower is a collection of cells does not make it stop being beautiful, in fact it becomes more beautiful when you understand how far it has come from the primal essence of the universe.

Quote from: Raelifin

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

Are you sure? If I see a restaurant, I can become hungry, though it is not the restaurant that I want to eat. Human mind and subconscious mind are interconnected, clearly. As humans we have power over the subconscious through action. Being able to distort sexual desire is one of the easiest things to do, as we can see through fetishes and cultural biases. If a person, for one reason or another, finds the same sex attractive, it builds as it reaches further into the subconscious. Just because our emotional responses are tuned to provide feedback on our lives does not be they cannot be altered. A great example of this is the feeling of loneliness, which corresponds to a need for companionship. Through simple effort, one can focus on the presence of other people in life and stop feeling lonely. So, no, I think that "weird" sexual activity is to be expected in a race as diverse and conscious as ourselves.

Yes, I am sure. Whips, chains and leather have no impact of the reproductive abilities of heterosexual fornication. Fornication within the same gender has no reproductive abilities whatsoever, so therefore you cannot use reproductive abilities of fornication as a reason for non-heterosexual Love.

Love is an unneccessary need one feels. One requires companionship of a closer kind, but only to a limited extent (you can't just go about being that close with anybody), the latter part being your recognition that people suck and you can only stand so much closeness.

In other words, you crave to be validated by someone else based on your own insecurities and failure to self-validate, but this is mitigated by the degree to which you can tolerate those you crave validation from. Besides which, sex is pleasurable and already provides the basis for an interaction wholly different from that with all other people. In the specific case of sex, the evolutionary "purpose" (but keep in mind that evolution does not work with a purpose, rather favoring those whose purpose is survival and reproduction) of pleasurable sex is to encourage sex. This does not mean, however, that our personal reasons for sex are always reproduction. In fact, from a personal perspective, it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of sex is pleasure. Which should be fairly friggin' obvious to anyone who's had it, no?

I'd expect more of a response to such an acrid outburst. Recent events make me more of a hypocrite than I'm letting on, though.

I still think it might be good if we started with what Socrates said. to refresh:

Quote from: Socrateslove is the allegiance of that which is good and that which is neither good nor evil, against the cause of evil.

Very roughly paraprased, anyways. I think this does a decent job at explaining the sense of "opposites attract" (for the neutral isn't good, yet is attracted to good), as well as the sense of "like attracts like" (for both neutral and good work against evil).

By th way, "good", "neutral" and "evil" are not being used here as moral terms.

When Socrates said it, which of the fivish Greek words for love washe using. Philos and Eros are worlds apart.

And who wrote it down? Plato has a hand at making Socrates say things he never did, or so it is believed.

Well... Yes, Plato wrote it, but that only changes whether it was the factual or fictional Socrates that said it; It doesn't change that it was Socrates that said it.

As for which love was used... Given the context, I believe it was friendship, but I imagine it can be altered for other forms of companionship.

What is love?  Broken fingers.

Quote from: limetomWhat is love?  Broken fingers.

There isn't a smiley for a grin like I'm wearing.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: limetomWhat is love?  Broken fingers.

There isn't a smiley for a grin like I'm wearing.

Y'mean the grinning smiley that AIM has?

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: limetomWhat is love?  Broken fingers.

Y'mean the grinning smiley that AIM has?

I don't get it... :(

AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) has a smiley that grins so wide, it covers half of the smiley's face and forces it to shut it's eyes.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koankoan[/url] all at the same time.  It's love.  You're not supposed to get it.  It just is.

Sure, you ain't supposed to get it (and you certainly won't), in the same way that there is no such supposition for any of the universe's qualities.  But you'll sure as hell try.

We pursue impossible knowledge (viz. any knowledge) as an integral part of our nature; if we didn't, we'd be bananas.

Now that's a fallacy. Bananas are actually extraordinarily zealous in their pursuit of arcana.

Sorry, that was a terrible slur.  Please don't report me!

VOICE OF MOD: Let's keep our fruitism out of this thread, please.

And now for a bit on the philosophy of humor: We don't get it either.

Bump

Once, I had a revelation regarding the philosophy of humor. Although, I guess it could more accurately be described as "comedy theory", but either way, I remember how impressed I was at how fast it all clicked.


Humor is a light-hearted, unexpected twist in an otherwise expected pattern.

So far, I haven't found a joke that doesn't fit that... Actually, it's kind of disappointing to think that such a fitting definition to such a difficult concept would come so easily :(

I've got some one-panel comics (though that label is debatable) that shake that by not quite starting with an expected pattern.

Quote from: CornHumor is a light-hearted, unexpected twist in an otherwise expected pattern.

I think that's pretty much what Wittgenstein said: humour is when someone unexpectedly (not necessarily deliberately) switches language games.

Not sure that fits all cases, though. What if humour is provided out of context (as beejazz points at) or doesn't require language at all?

Túrin

Quote from: Túrin

Quote from: CornHumor is a light-hearted, unexpected twist in an otherwise expected pattern.

I think that's pretty much what Wittgenstein said: humour is when someone unexpectedly (not necessarily deliberately) switches language games.

Not sure that fits all cases, though. What if humour is provided out of context (as beejazz points at) or doesn't require language at all?

Túrin

Well see, my version makes no comment about language, or it's use. Actually, it doesn't mention intent, either, as there's lots of unintentional humor, too.

Beejazz's case shakes it up a bit, but I imagine the "pattern", or context, is provided by the viewer. It's a bit of a stretch, so I'll have to see the comics before I pass that, though.


As an off-topic sidenote, I think I've read too much Scott McCloud to think of single-panel things as "comics". Comic-style, sure, but I feel it'd take at least a second panel before it's a comic.

What about when you watch a kid fall over while ice skating, then he gets up, falls over again, gets up, falls over, gets up, falls over...

I find that freakin' hilarious (at least, I did at the time), explicitly because I knew he would just fall over again.  And again.

Ah, in this case the continuation (and not the breaking) of the pattern is a big part of the humor; it's totally expected. I can think of other examples where you see something disastrous and hilarious coming... tension builds and is released when the forseen event occurs... like a parachuter drifting towards a tower.

I'd say the twist is in your mind in such a case: at one point you start recognizing the pattern (in SA's case) or foresee the event (in beejazz' case), which is the twist, and then when actual events live up to the idea in your mind, it's funny.

Or something.

Túrin

Anyway, I probably shouldn'y post these pictures here, as they are upcoming updates to my webcomic (finally) but to illustrate the earlier point:


(//../../e107_files/public/1178211280_56_FT205_sisenor_.jpg) (//../../e107_files/public/1178211280_56_FT205_sisenor.jpg)

(//../../e107_files/public/1178211280_56_FT205_possum_.jpg) (//../../e107_files/public/1178211280_56_FT205_possum.jpg)

I don't really get the "possum" one, but I saw right away the expected pattern that was broken in the first one (by the way, I did/i] find that funny).

The pattern, of course, is that you'd expect minions to be as helpful as possible; Their very purpose in life is to serve. "yes men", in cases like this, reject helpfulness in faovr of agreeability.

SA's case, it's funny because you wouldn't expect somebody that bad at skating to be anywhere near ice. But yet...

The parachuter case is a bit trickier, but I think turin covered it fairly well.

So...

Do the inhabitants of the Den believe in unsolvable philosophically quandaries?

Unsolvable? Or insoluble.

I've got solutions, but I pray to whatever gods are listening every night that those solutions are wrong.

This is the part where I don't panic, right?

In big, friendly yellow letters, yes.

Even if the thesis of scientific convergence were true (which I will not get into for now) I'd argue that we still wouldn't know everything. Ultimate certainty will never be achieved in all areas, though some problems that might seem unsolvable now might be solved (or dissolved) in the future. So yes, at least IMHO.

Túrin