I Need Help With My Ideas

[DReaver13]

Okay, for the last two years I have been studying Sociology at school. After finishing school I had an interest in finding out more. I have been on these forums, along with the Capitalist Paradise ones, and briefly on Cap Magazine (I was banned 4 times).

I have gone from an avid Communist, to a political agnostic who is leaning towards the left. Just until I can collectivize my thoughts and findings that is.

I have debated for two months against objectivists on capitalist paradise, and I understand their philosophy reasonably well now. It still seems to be based on rather shaky foundations that are un-provable, and the idea of universal truths seems far-fetched. Still, I have yet to find flaws in their logic.

I need some help now though.

I have started writing my own theory. It is based on philosophical thought and scientific fact.

Please read it as it stands on this page (http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/articles_everything.htm).

I have some questions now.

What is "human nature"? Is it a scientific fact? Do we have a basic, preset list of natural behavioral patterns?

Where do human emotions come from and what decides what makes us happy or sad etc? The seem not to be based on logic.

Are philosophy and science mutually exclusive? Both are based on some kind of evidence, but what is the key difference between them?

I have more but I shall leave it there for now.

[Guerrilla22]

what's the meaning of life?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You might wanna check out this thread by the way, spurred on by you at my board:

http://www.thevaselines.co.uk/forum/index....howtopic=84&hl= (http://www.thevaselines.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=84&hl=)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

What is "human nature"? Is it a scientific fact? Do we have a basic, preset list of natural behavioral patterns?

Not at all, human nature is impossible to define. I can't even contemplate how it could be possible. I can see why you are asking this questions however and once again it's related to the Objectivists.

I'll give you some ideas maybe, Nietzsche for example points out that man's greatest mistake is that he is under the impression that there is a static truth behind everything. The point being that humanity, their collective conciousness are constantly adding and evolving what is considered truth. There is no human nature because man evolves over time and I don't mean that in an scientific way, I mean that humanity developing it's conciousness kind of way.

Now take Jung for example, Jung tries to point out that each man has two selves in his life, an internal and external self. In between this is the persona, or the mask he wears in order to get along is society.

I can go on and on but to put it simply conciousness develops and truth is never static. Human nature is not exactly a myth but the last bastion of people who fear change.




Where do human emotions come from and what decides what makes us happy or sad etc? The seem not to be based on logic

Well that's a hotly debated subject in psychology so I won't say I'm right here but what makes you happy and what makes you sad is quite simply what is appealing to your personality. Your personality being the culmanation of your existence up to whatever point you happen to be listening to.


Are philosophy and science mutually exclusive? Both are based on some kind of evidence, but what is the key difference between them?

Philosophy in my opinion is above science, the ultimayte science if you will. They are not mutually exclusive but you don't have to be interested in both or know much about the other in order to excel in one of them.

Sceince is based on reason, facts etc whereas philosophy is based on reason but is more abstract and dosen't rely on facts as such.

Some philosophers wouldn'nt seperate the two, for example Locke said that 'Philosophy should be the underlabourer of science' that it should clear the rubble away for scientific thought.

Nietzsche believed science was limited but to a certain degree realised it's benefits.

Idealists like say Berekely would have had no use for science because their ideas were purely metaphysical.

Remember meta-physics means beyond physics.

[honest intellectual]

Science and philosophy are one and the same thing.

Either study is coming up with explanations of the universe based on observations. Why does a certain thing happen? What causes what? What forces are at work, causing these things we observe?

Even linguistically, the distinction only arose recently; in the middle ages the word 'philosophy' covered chemistry, biology, physics, religious/ theological questions etc. What we now call 'physics' was called 'natural philosophy' until, I think, the 1920s.

[DReaver13]

What's the meaning of life?
We can never know, yet objectivism claims that it is simply "to live".


You might wanna check out this thread by the way, spurred on by you at my board:
Some good points there.

Sure, objectivism seems logically flawless (as long as you think A is A), but it is still based on un-provable assumptions. It must have flaws in other ways, such as the implications of it's application to society.

I am making progress, with the aid of my super-physicist buddy, pointing out that to be an objectivist, is to live without emotions. There is scientific proof to back this up. It isn't a flaw in the theory, but it is a flaw that arises from it's application. Who wants to be stripped of emotions?

Have a look here (http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=300&st=105&#entry3974573).


Not at all, human nature is impossible to define. I can't even contemplate how it could be possible. I can see why you are asking this questions however and once again it's related to the Objectivists.
My science friend argues that there is in fact a 'human-nature'. It is our instincts, and our emotions derive from our preset nature.


Well that's a hotly debated subject in psychology so I won't say I'm right here but what makes you happy and what makes you sad is quite simply what is appealing to your personality. Your personality being the culmanation of your existence up to whatever point you happen to be listening to.
My science friend says emotions are automatic reactions of human beings.


Philosophy in my opinion is above science, the ultimayte science if you will. They are not mutually exclusive but you don't have to be interested in both or know much about the other in order to excel in one of them.
Hehe my science friend dismisses philosophy completely.


Science and philosophy are one and the same thing.
With one key difference, science backs itself up with provable evidence. Philosophy is made up of assumptions alone.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:11 PM
Cap Magazine (I was banned 4 times).
They banned me 5 times :P

Once they banned me for posting a piece of evidence that supported the theory global warming.

[honest intellectual]

Philosophy should back itself up as well. I mean, no philosopher (or no good philosopher) would expect anyone to accept a certain theory without any evidence.

For example, a philosopher might note that the universe exists (observed evidence), so the universe must have been made by someone (reasoning), hence God exists (conclusion).
Similarly, a scientist might note that things always fall down (observed evidence), so there must be a force pulling them down (reasoning), so gravity exists (conclusion).

[DReaver13]

Once they banned me for posting a piece of evidence that supported the theory global warming.

Haha that's the most hilariously stupid thing i've ever heard.

[DReaver13]

But really, I think we've hit a nerve over at capitalist paradise. We seem to have proven that objectivism seeks to strip humans of their emotions!

Horray!

They have been reduced to denying that human instincts exist.

Capitalist Paradise (http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=300&st=120)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

My science friend argues that there is in fact a 'human-nature'. It is our instincts, and our emotions derive from our preset nature.

So have we always had the same human nature? And are all our instincts more or less the same that we can categorise them as human nature?

I'd like to get this guy over at Talk Philosophy (http://www.talkphilosophy.org) if he wants to take up a Human Nature debate I'll set up soon.



My science friend says emotions are automatic reactions of human beings.

Well tell him to back it up and prove his point.



Hehe my science friend dismisses philosophy completely.

I'm sure we'd get along swimmingly! :lol:



With one key difference, science backs itself up with provable evidence. Philosophy is made up of assumptions alone.

Everything, even science is based on theory. Sceince is a set of theories that explain the world, in other words a set of rules for us to understand the world.

It is also limited, is their a science of ethics or more importantly would we want one.

[apathy maybe]

A couple of threads you might be intersted in are, Human nature (in the Science Forum) (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27865) and threads in the Theory forum (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=6) (particularly this one (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25915))

[DReaver13]

Everything, even science is based on theory. Sceince is a set of theories that explain the world, in other words a set of rules for us to understand the world.
Indeed. But there is scientific theory, and scientific fact. Scientific theory more or less IS philosophy, and scientific fact is philosophy which has been proven by scientific methods.

I think we may have to support science over philosophy to have debates that actually come to a conclusion. Philosophy is good for trying to explain what science has yet to, but since it can't be proven, debates could go on for ever.

[DReaver13]

Well tell him to back it up and prove his point.
He backs it up.

There are three rough views in the argument.

You can support the objectivists, and say that instinct does not exist in humans, and that emotions are based on our values, and you can change your values at will, thus controlling your emotions.

You can support my physicist friend who says humans DO have instinct, and instinct determines our emotions on the most part.

Or you can support my third approach that acknowledges that instinct is present, but which sees that emotions are based on values. However these values are not controllable, and our sub-concious calculates them for us.

[Trissy]

What is "human nature"? Is it a scientific fact? Do we have a basic, preset list of natural behavioral patterns?

I don't believe in a human nature that compels us to act in certain ways and that overrides our ability to make free choices. I believe that we have individual sets of built-in instincts (which are established through evolution) such as self-preservation, and reproduction but that these differ in strength and number from one person to the next (and so cannot be grouped under the heading 'human nature') and ultimately only influence our behaviour and do not determine our actions. I still assert that our existence proceeds our essence in that sense. That would explain why some people are more drawn to having children then others, and why some people may be strongly attracted to the idea and yet still reject it.

The idea of man as a slave to his nature is one I could not disagree with more and when people commit acts of bad faith by saying 'oh it's just human nature' then I get quite annoyed.


Where do human emotions come from and what decides what makes us happy or sad etc? The seem not to be based on logic
I've just bought Sartre's 'Sketch for a Theory of Emotions' because a) it's supposedly the weakest part of his philosophy and b) I wanted to try and understand where it fits in with his type of Existentialism. I've not got that far with it but it seems that for Sartre emotions are a lesser form of consciousness in that they possess intentionality and that they are always aware of themselves through this. As Sartre sees it emotions are an attempt to change what we are aware of 'magically' instead of rationally when objects block our path to a set goal. As such emotions are an irrational version of consciousness and are choosen by the individual. He uses an example of being filled with terror when we see a strange face at the window. Rationally we may think that there is a glass and other objects between us and the face, and that even if the face could get to us it may not want to do us harm. However, by choosing to be terrified or to scream we abandon this rational thought and attempt to change what we are aware of 'magically'. Supposedly Sartre's view of emotions is stronger for negative emotions then for positive ones but I can see how it might work with emotions such as love or happiness.

I'll read more into it but it is beginning to make some sense to me even if it looks completely crazy at first glance.


Are philosophy and science mutually exclusive? Both are based on some kind of evidence, but what is the key difference between them?

I don't think they are mutually exclusive as such but I think they both look at different areas. If you read into Philosophy of Science then you often find that historically science has not been aware of its own place in the world or its own foundations. I think Nietzsche made an important point when he said that science seperated from philosophy when philosophy stopped just searching for truth and instead inquired as to what knowledge was useful for man to know...the point being that an eternal search for truth (whatever it may be) could lead to science opening Pandora's box.

On a slightly different note I'm tempted to say that science differs from philosophy in that is exists as a single paradigm (or 'world view') during the long periods of normal science whereas philosophy is made up of many branches and so has many different paradigms within it (Marxists, Hegelians, Kantians, Existentialists, and the such like all have their own thoughts and views about the world). Then again I may have to alter my view of science at a later date because I'm not quite sure whether I agree with Kuhn or with Feyerband at the moment...


Science and philosophy are one and the same thing
I'm not quite sure I agree because Philosophy of Science as a branch of Philosophy would then cease to make much sense. Science has a method behind it and you can trace it through biology, chemistry, physics and mixtures of the two (biochemistry, physical chemistry, etc). Philosophy on the other hand cannot claim to have such a universal method to it because the work of the logical positivists could not be further from the work of philosophers of religion, and the work of the Rationalists likewise is very different from that of the Existentialists.


With one key difference, science backs itself up with provable evidence. Philosophy is made up of assumptions alone
:lol: I think you'll find that science is far from provable! It is based on just as many assumptions as philosophy and maths...call them axioms or auxillary theories if you will but they are assumptions none the less. I'm not saying that science is wrong or useless because on the contrary it has helped mankind greatly, rather I'm just saying that Inductionists/Verificationists, Falsificationists and Deductionists will never arrive at the concrete Truth they desire...


For example, a philosopher might note that the universe exists (observed evidence), so the universe must have been made by someone (reasoning), hence God exists (conclusion).
Similarly, a scientist might note that things always fall down (observed evidence), so there must be a force pulling them down (reasoning), so gravity exists (conclusion).
Which are all based on the assumption that my observations are accurate and give me an insight into the nature of reality.

Also the conclusion that God exists is based on the assumption that just because I've exprienced everything material having a cause outside itself, that everything material does have a cause outside itself...this is a flaw inherent in Inductionism and so a flaw in the Cosmological argument.

[Trissy]

Oh and in regards to your theory, and your views of ethics...


Humans, like all beings, seem to have a pre-programmed will to survive, termed by some as the 'human algorithm'. From this we can assume that survival serves a purpose, even if we can never know for certain what this purpose is. We can however try to find this purpose. Looking at our species and its history, purpose seems axiomatic.
This seems a rather dangerous assertion in that it appears to me to be providing religious people a basis from which they can build an argument for Natural Law, which is a system of ethics I hate almost as much as those who came up with it.

The reason I say this is that 'pre-programmed' seems to logically imply that there is a programmer (i.e. God) and from this basis they can extend your argument that existence/surivival serves a purpose by saying that there is a divine purpose...and that contraception, euthanasia, abortion, homosexuality, masturbation, and more are all wrong/evil.

I think a safer bet would be to say that the human race 'evolved' to have will to life because this does not require us to use the dangerous idea of purpose. We cannot be certain about our origins and so we cannot be sure that we have always had this instinct...or that it developed out of anything more then chance.


From biological evidence, we can see that we are made to reproduce. This is undeniable and self-evident. Therefore our purpose (or one of them) may be to reproduce, to ensure the survival of our species in the future. We are also made with the capability for thought, not just simple basic thought, but innovative and imaginative thought
Again...the idea of being made implies a maker. We may have evolved to reproduce but there is a gap between saying we can reproduce and we should reproduce.


Without a collective purpose, our individual purpose amounts to nothing.

Without a collective purpose, we would not reproduce. Humanity would have died as soon as the last member of its first generation died.

Since individuals die in the end, and all the internal accomplishments of the individual disappear into nothingness (in terms of being able to further affect the reality in which they lived), the only logical way of preserving 'survival' is through external accomplishments. These are bestowed upon other people. 'Survival' after death can only be achieved through contribution to subsequent humanity.

Individual survival cannot logically be a human purpose, since it can only be sustained so long as one is alive. Immortality is naturally impossible, and frankly, undesirable. I challenge you to live for 500,000 years and not get a little 'fed up'. Well, I challenge you to live for 500,000 years full stop. Even if immortality was possible, eventually the world would become too overpopulated by the elderly who cannot work enough to provide for themselves comfortably, and cannot be provided for by a minority of able workers, equating to more suffering.

Collective survival must logically be a human purpose; otherwise we would not have the facilities to reproduce. If we didn't have the facilities to reproduce, we would not be here, and without the past achievements of other people we would not have progressed in any way since the very first human walked the earth.

Only for the if we're after Objective purpose...for some subjective purpose will be enough to live for and to die for. What happens to the human race after I die is not that interesting to me (although I'm not a misanthrope) purely because I won't be here. How I live my life is of far more importance to me precisely because it is my life and precisely because I live a conscious rebellion against the absurdity of it.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to point to the destruction of humanity as a collection anyway. Reproduce if we want, but as the Universe cools down and becomes more organised we'll all cease to be. I'm not arguing for Nihilism here...I'm merely seeking to establish an honest fight against Nihilism.

The idea of collective purpose is as absurd as the idea of subjective purpose...the one thing going for subjective purpose though is that I shall be here to see the majority what my life effects, whereas we live in ignorance of a vast amount of our history precisely because history is written by the winners in life. What matters is the individual...how can any collective purpose help one decide whether to have an abortion or not? Whether to steal or not? Objective views will always come second place to the life the individual and the choices they are faced with.

[DReaver13]

I think a safer bet would be to say that the human race 'evolved' to have will to life because this does not require us to use the dangerous idea of purpose. We cannot be certain about our origins and so we cannot be sure that we have always had this instinct...or that it developed out of anything more then chance.


Again...the idea of being made implies a maker. We may have evolved to reproduce but there is a gap between saying we can reproduce and we should reproduce.

I completely agree. I didn't realise this very easy connotation with creation theory. Thanks for pointing that out, that's what I should have said in the first place.


Only for the if we're after Objective purpose...for some subjective purpose will be enough to live for and to die for. What happens to the human race after I die is not that interesting to me (although I'm not a misanthrope) purely because I won't be here. How I live my life is of far more importance to me precisely because it is my life and precisely because I live a conscious rebellion against the absurdity of it.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to point to the destruction of humanity as a collection anyway. Reproduce if we want, but as the Universe cools down and becomes more organised we'll all cease to be. I'm not arguing for Nihilism here...I'm merely seeking to establish an honest fight against Nihilism.

The idea of collective purpose is as absurd as the idea of subjective purpose...the one thing going for subjective purpose though is that I shall be here to see the majority what my life effects, whereas we live in ignorance of a vast amount of our history precisely because history is written by the winners in life. What matters is the individual...how can any collective purpose help one decide whether to have an abortion or not? Whether to steal or not? Objective views will always come second place to the life the individual and the choices they are faced with.
Okay, what about "we have no purpose, only what we make ourselves".