Ok here we go again guys. I apologise greatly to the few for having not posted in the past 1 month 1 week and 2 days, I really have no excuse other than I lost motivation to continue for a little while. Anyway I will continue with this from now on (at least until I lose will again), and will bring out The Fear Factor soon, since 5 weeks one post would be pretty bad. This one focuses on the effect Greed has on our capitalist societies, an obvious subject, but surprisingly difficult to write in words (As such, this may not be the best article ever)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Let’s get started…
What is the basis of human society? What is the basis of the current state of human mind, the very core essence that has been created and moulded by its surroundings? The optimistic would suggest that it is love and peace, and yet war and conflict suggests otherwise. A stronger argument that is often suggested is that the basis of society is greed, that society is based on corruption, on capitalism and elitism of the few over the many. The material bases of society are the written laws, which we live and abide by. How and why are these laws formed? The obvious and logical truth is that laws are formed not from a ‘greater good’, or intelligent choices or ideas, but instead by the very basis of the mind. The emotions of the human being. In this article I wish to draw attention to the key argument, and the one most likely relevant to our current society: Greed.
The Greed of Men
Some background history of the emotion of Greed. Greed, as does not need pointing out, has long been considered a negative, disruptive and ultimately destructive emotion, breeding corruption, hatred and elitism, among others. By the Christian Church (and many others, I might add), greed has been considered a trecherous and heretical sin, and all who succumb to it are condemned to eternal hellfire and damnation.
The emotion greed is defined as:
A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth or power.
It should be pointed out that greed is the desire, and not the pursuit of said desire. However, the pursuit of greed is what is to be taken into account, when the formation of our capitalist society comes into play.
Motivation and Excess
Greed is seen as the excess of what one needs, but how does this excess come to be? Why do we feel the ‘need’ (I use the term lightly, of course) to by-pass our simplistic need, in order to achieve greater wants. Although motivation is generally seen as a good thing, this extreme, insatiable drive to achieve is what gives birth to such feelings of greed. However, this drive is often our motivation for living, and often encouraged, if only subconsciously, throughout the veins of society. However, the question arises as to whether this drive is innate, or adaptive.
In order for us to examine this excess, we must first return to the roots of the very human existence. Humans have instinctual urges built into their mental and physical system, created for our survival. The two key ones, as we all know, would be survival, and reproduction. We follow our instincts to survive, and as such have the ability to reproduce. Through this reproduction, more beings with the will to survive are created, who in turn repeat this cycle over and over. The will to survive is where I begin.
Living requires certain necesseties, certain requirements, to be fulfilled and maintained, in order to guarantee survival. The obvious components of this would be food, drink and warmth. Our survival requires us to maintain such needs, and as such, it would be natural for us to instinctually want to gain as much, if not an infinite, supply of such necessities. This is, in my belief, what has created our lust, our greed, our want. In our modern day society, certain new, developed aspects help to guarantee us such necessities. The most common of these, naturally, are what is listed in the definition of greed itself: Money, Wealth and Power.
The Effect in Capitalism
A captalist society, such as the one we live in currently, is based on the laws of gain or loss. As such, everybody wants to make a gain, and nobody wants to make a loss. Due to the integration, and dependence, of money, money has become the key object of the inhabitants within capitalist societies. Of course, power (which is also closely linked with money) is also an obvious pursuit fueled by ‘greed’, though to a much lesser extent in today’s society. The guarantee of life is an excess of money, and therefore many gain more money than ‘needed’, causing others to essentially suffer from no guarantee of survival. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, this shows that the capitalist society creates disregard for human life (par one’s own), which is directly linked to the emotion of greed.
Conclusion
In conclusion of this section, it can be shown that both innate and adaptive processes are used in forming greed, and therefore society. These are formed from the human mind’s insatiable lust for life’s necessities (innate), coupled with the learnt idea that the closest path to a guaranteed survival is through power and wealth (adaptive). If these two are indeed jointly used to create the atmosphere of greed, then greed may not be a sin, an ‘evil’. It could be considered merely a creation of the time, and the attitude of the environment we have created. However, greed is so integral to the functioning of the capitalist society that we both depend on it to uphold the society and its economy in productive form, while at the same time encouraging the condemnation of the majority of the population by the few.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed - Gandhi
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Society: The Laws and the Emotions
Today, I will start a new topic, hopefully not as in-depth and thorough as the Concept Problem 'series' (if you could call it that), but instead a few shorter, easier to understand blogs on the bases of our societies and cultures. As this set of blogs is unrelated to the Concept Problem, of course irt is understandable if black-and-white 'concepts' are utilised for the purpose of argument. After all, the Concpet Problem is simply a theory, as opposed to a righteous belief, of mine.
First, I pose you the question: What forms the foundations of our societies? Of course, our societies are created from the very laws and scoial norms that run and control the behaviour of the many, but what of these laws? Laws are created for the 'better' of our society, but it is never questioned as to why these particular laws, or norms, are the ones that we choose to live by. Are laws decided as a part of some 'greater good', are they simply decided on the whim of the few for the many, or is there a more underlying meaning?
Social norms have been around since the beginning of humankind, and are clearly present in other species as well. Laws are simply these norms written on paper, often for the well-being of the majority. The truth of these laws is that they are simply creations of our behaviour, or more basically, our emotions. However, what are the key emotions that govern society? There are many differing view on this, some say justice and peace, others say greed, among many ideas.
This is a question that I wish to ask you, before I begin investigating 'Laws and Emotions'. What are your beliefs on the laws of societies, and why do you think these emotions, or otherwise, have an impact on society? Please feel free to comment below with your ideas.
First, I pose you the question: What forms the foundations of our societies? Of course, our societies are created from the very laws and scoial norms that run and control the behaviour of the many, but what of these laws? Laws are created for the 'better' of our society, but it is never questioned as to why these particular laws, or norms, are the ones that we choose to live by. Are laws decided as a part of some 'greater good', are they simply decided on the whim of the few for the many, or is there a more underlying meaning?
Social norms have been around since the beginning of humankind, and are clearly present in other species as well. Laws are simply these norms written on paper, often for the well-being of the majority. The truth of these laws is that they are simply creations of our behaviour, or more basically, our emotions. However, what are the key emotions that govern society? There are many differing view on this, some say justice and peace, others say greed, among many ideas.
This is a question that I wish to ask you, before I begin investigating 'Laws and Emotions'. What are your beliefs on the laws of societies, and why do you think these emotions, or otherwise, have an impact on society? Please feel free to comment below with your ideas.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Paradox: Belief vs Concept
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference
First I would like to apologise greatly (if you care, that is) that I have not been posting my blog on a regular basis, but yeah, life, stress, work etc. (plus I have had a bit of a mental block and have been unable to edit my posts for publishing)
Besides that, after watching the documentary/film Zeitgeist, I am inspired and raring to start off posting on a regular basis (I know I'm advertising again, but let me just say it is the single best piece of work I have ever witnessed)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Impossibility of Perfection Round Two
This time I will show an alternative approach to showing indifference, but to do this, we must take into account my first post: The Impossibility of Perfection. As a short, hopefully concise, recap:
To achieve perfection, one must be able to be able to achieve anything, including defying logic. If one then actively defies logic, he has achieved what is not possible. However, since the impossible has HAPPENED, it has become possible. As it has become possible, one has no longer defied logic, and, in turn, is no longer perfect (or, more accurately, was never perfect to begin with)
With this theory of mine suggesting the impossibilities of perfection, I can minimise the impossibilities of perfection to that of concepts.
Rule of Indifference
If this logical standpoint does indeed show a non-existence of perfection, then that consequently shows that perfection is impossible. If perfection does not exist, then the ultimate good is no longer ultimate, and is no longer closer to true meaning of good then the darkest evil are minds can imagine. Difference is now irrelevant and inapplicable to life, essentially, in mathematical terms, 10 – 1 = 0. If there is no goal, no true good, that can be reached from acting ‘good’, then what is considered to be ‘good’ is indifferent from what is considered ‘evil’. Using the idea of good and evil, this ‘Rule of Indifference’ would be considered and described as:
If there can be no perfect ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then there can be no difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
As such the ideas of good and bad are rendered useless, making us question to what are the definitions of good and bad?
To be blunt, there is NO definition. No one man is closer from good than he is from evil, as these concepts are ill-defined and vague beyond belief.
Application to Real Life
Another question that can arise form this method, however, is whether the ‘Rule of Indifference’ can be used not only for conceptual arguments, but also physical arguments. Can it apply to our society, to our lives?
This is a certain possibility, one could say that:
If there can be no perfect way to live, then there can be no difference between a ‘good life’ and a ‘bad life’
By altering the idea, it is possible not only to use this for the purpose of concepts, but also applying it do everyday ideas and objects (However, since perfection itself is a concept, thus all arguments will contain an a strong conceptual element)
Conclusion
This rule, in my opinion, though not as clear as the Rule of Agreement in Part I, is more definitive as proof of no good or bad. Although with ‘Agreement’, it suggests there is either no difference between Black-and-White concepts, it is minutely possible that there is one correct way to believe, and that all of us, or all but one, have the incorrect belief.
However, with the ‘Rule of Indifference’, it shows that the indifference in ideas and beliefs does exist, and that it is impossible for a single correct opinion to exist within the indifference.
Besides that, after watching the documentary/film Zeitgeist, I am inspired and raring to start off posting on a regular basis (I know I'm advertising again, but let me just say it is the single best piece of work I have ever witnessed)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Impossibility of Perfection Round Two
This time I will show an alternative approach to showing indifference, but to do this, we must take into account my first post: The Impossibility of Perfection. As a short, hopefully concise, recap:
To achieve perfection, one must be able to be able to achieve anything, including defying logic. If one then actively defies logic, he has achieved what is not possible. However, since the impossible has HAPPENED, it has become possible. As it has become possible, one has no longer defied logic, and, in turn, is no longer perfect (or, more accurately, was never perfect to begin with)
With this theory of mine suggesting the impossibilities of perfection, I can minimise the impossibilities of perfection to that of concepts.
Rule of Indifference
If this logical standpoint does indeed show a non-existence of perfection, then that consequently shows that perfection is impossible. If perfection does not exist, then the ultimate good is no longer ultimate, and is no longer closer to true meaning of good then the darkest evil are minds can imagine. Difference is now irrelevant and inapplicable to life, essentially, in mathematical terms, 10 – 1 = 0. If there is no goal, no true good, that can be reached from acting ‘good’, then what is considered to be ‘good’ is indifferent from what is considered ‘evil’. Using the idea of good and evil, this ‘Rule of Indifference’ would be considered and described as:
If there can be no perfect ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then there can be no difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
As such the ideas of good and bad are rendered useless, making us question to what are the definitions of good and bad?
To be blunt, there is NO definition. No one man is closer from good than he is from evil, as these concepts are ill-defined and vague beyond belief.
Application to Real Life
Another question that can arise form this method, however, is whether the ‘Rule of Indifference’ can be used not only for conceptual arguments, but also physical arguments. Can it apply to our society, to our lives?
This is a certain possibility, one could say that:
If there can be no perfect way to live, then there can be no difference between a ‘good life’ and a ‘bad life’
By altering the idea, it is possible not only to use this for the purpose of concepts, but also applying it do everyday ideas and objects (However, since perfection itself is a concept, thus all arguments will contain an a strong conceptual element)
Conclusion
This rule, in my opinion, though not as clear as the Rule of Agreement in Part I, is more definitive as proof of no good or bad. Although with ‘Agreement’, it suggests there is either no difference between Black-and-White concepts, it is minutely possible that there is one correct way to believe, and that all of us, or all but one, have the incorrect belief.
However, with the ‘Rule of Indifference’, it shows that the indifference in ideas and beliefs does exist, and that it is impossible for a single correct opinion to exist within the indifference.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
The Concept Problem, Part I: The Rule of Agreement
Ok this is the second major post, and I am kind of annoyed that i posted the introductory thing last week because the whole idea is actually a lot simpler than I first anticipated, only taking up a page and a half on Word, with much of it already mentioned in the introduction and the comments. Anyway, I press on...
(Also, I cutting the once-a-week thing for just when I feel like it, so blogs may be more frequent from here on)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Foundations
In our world, there are several societies and cultures, with differences between them ranging from slight to extreme. However, one thing that is common in all societies, and all cultures, are foundations: set standards and beliefs shared by near the entirety of that society as the ‘correct’ way of thinking and acting; certain convictions that both the individual and the collective holds dear and true to them from birth till death. However, since all societies differ in ways of thinking, the supposed ‘right’ and ‘wrongs’ within such societies will naturally differ. So, does this mean that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or that a singular belief of a single society overrides the singular contradictory belief that other societies might share as their norm?
Contradiction, Indifference and Agreement
The definition of ‘right’ is that that is “correct, just and true”, and conversely, the definition of ‘wrong’ being “incorrect or untrue”
With these foundations having the ability to contradict each other, and with the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ being simple creations of humankind’s mind, it cannot truly be possible for a true ‘right’, nor a true ‘wrong’, to logically exist. Instead, rights and wrongs are simply based on majority belief, and we use these to define our social norms. Using this ‘rule of agreement’, a better description of right or wrong would be:
Right: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the correct action to the corresponding situation’
Wrong: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the incorrect action to the corresponding situation’
And as you can, like everything in life, the ‘rights’ and the ‘wrongs’ are based on pure belief. Of course, what I have stated over the past two paragraphs should be nothing new, as an average open-minded person would be able to see this with ease. However, what people don’t consider is the next step, applications.
Application of the ‘Rule of Agreement’
‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts, and as have been shown, are subject to the rule of agreement, in which people over-estimate their beliefs as the only possible correct way of thinking, if only unconsciously. However, the very reason that these are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective, so-to-speak, one that is easy to understand and follow. As such, shouldn’t other opposing concepts also be subject to this rule? Right and Wrong, True and Untrue, Good and Bad, and even, with great regret, Moral and Immoral, all suffer from this Rule of Agreement, as splitting a world into opposing concepts will not change the fact that the world originally had no concepts to begin with. There are no rights or wrongs, no truths or untruths, no good, no bad, no morals or immorals, only belief. The very basis of our life and existence, or any reason or purpose, is ultimately undermined and eliminated, through complete, unwavering indifference.
Conclusion
This rule of agreement undermines our very system of living, through pure logic it can defy the idea of logic (N.B. ironic, huh?), and show that there is little more than pure unfiltered indifference in existence. However, even if we have the knowledge of this, do we have the understanding? Knowing that indifference is the ultimate, and that anything we believe for sure is subject to almost certain doubt and disagreement, does not mean that we would be able to live our lives with this in mind*. Being able to know this in full extent, and base ones life around such a philosophy, is ridiculous, nay, impossible, for a living being’s intellect to be able to comprehend, and resultantly act upon. Our very life, our existence, is founded on our beliefs, and if these are the only things we can trust with total surety, then we are forced to live by them, regardless or irregardless of the almost certain conflict and doubt imposed by others, or whether we want to or not.
*Just because what is able to understand the cause, does not mean one is able to understand the outcome.
Ok that's it for today, and please feel free to try and shoot me down and criticise me I need a little debate. Also, next time I'll cover the second part of the concept problem, entitled 'The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference/The difference between 1 and 10 is zero' (haven't settled on name yet, but I'm guessing you get the gist of it)
(Also, I cutting the once-a-week thing for just when I feel like it, so blogs may be more frequent from here on)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Foundations
In our world, there are several societies and cultures, with differences between them ranging from slight to extreme. However, one thing that is common in all societies, and all cultures, are foundations: set standards and beliefs shared by near the entirety of that society as the ‘correct’ way of thinking and acting; certain convictions that both the individual and the collective holds dear and true to them from birth till death. However, since all societies differ in ways of thinking, the supposed ‘right’ and ‘wrongs’ within such societies will naturally differ. So, does this mean that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or that a singular belief of a single society overrides the singular contradictory belief that other societies might share as their norm?
Contradiction, Indifference and Agreement
The definition of ‘right’ is that that is “correct, just and true”, and conversely, the definition of ‘wrong’ being “incorrect or untrue”
With these foundations having the ability to contradict each other, and with the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ being simple creations of humankind’s mind, it cannot truly be possible for a true ‘right’, nor a true ‘wrong’, to logically exist. Instead, rights and wrongs are simply based on majority belief, and we use these to define our social norms. Using this ‘rule of agreement’, a better description of right or wrong would be:
Right: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the correct action to the corresponding situation’
Wrong: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the incorrect action to the corresponding situation’
And as you can, like everything in life, the ‘rights’ and the ‘wrongs’ are based on pure belief. Of course, what I have stated over the past two paragraphs should be nothing new, as an average open-minded person would be able to see this with ease. However, what people don’t consider is the next step, applications.
Application of the ‘Rule of Agreement’
‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts, and as have been shown, are subject to the rule of agreement, in which people over-estimate their beliefs as the only possible correct way of thinking, if only unconsciously. However, the very reason that these are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective, so-to-speak, one that is easy to understand and follow. As such, shouldn’t other opposing concepts also be subject to this rule? Right and Wrong, True and Untrue, Good and Bad, and even, with great regret, Moral and Immoral, all suffer from this Rule of Agreement, as splitting a world into opposing concepts will not change the fact that the world originally had no concepts to begin with. There are no rights or wrongs, no truths or untruths, no good, no bad, no morals or immorals, only belief. The very basis of our life and existence, or any reason or purpose, is ultimately undermined and eliminated, through complete, unwavering indifference.
Conclusion
This rule of agreement undermines our very system of living, through pure logic it can defy the idea of logic (N.B. ironic, huh?), and show that there is little more than pure unfiltered indifference in existence. However, even if we have the knowledge of this, do we have the understanding? Knowing that indifference is the ultimate, and that anything we believe for sure is subject to almost certain doubt and disagreement, does not mean that we would be able to live our lives with this in mind*. Being able to know this in full extent, and base ones life around such a philosophy, is ridiculous, nay, impossible, for a living being’s intellect to be able to comprehend, and resultantly act upon. Our very life, our existence, is founded on our beliefs, and if these are the only things we can trust with total surety, then we are forced to live by them, regardless or irregardless of the almost certain conflict and doubt imposed by others, or whether we want to or not.
*Just because what is able to understand the cause, does not mean one is able to understand the outcome.
Ok that's it for today, and please feel free to try and shoot me down and criticise me I need a little debate. Also, next time I'll cover the second part of the concept problem, entitled 'The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference/The difference between 1 and 10 is zero' (haven't settled on name yet, but I'm guessing you get the gist of it)
Friday, 23 January 2009
Truth and Lies: An Introduction to The Concept Problem
I would like to thank everyone for their support of my blog, I was a bit hesitant at first but I feel this is a good thing for me to do now (even though its only the second day...)
Although I contemplated putting up the first write-up
I did, i feel it's be better if I stick to the schedule of once-a-week (in addition to the fact that much of what I had written was too radical and dare I say, mad, looking back on it) Despite this, I ask you this:
If I asked you to tell me what is truth, would you be able to answer fully? You may answer the truth is what you know to be right, the scientific approach. However, the 'true' atom 100 years ago was different from the true atom of today. Since proof is constantly in change and fluctuation, science cannot be the truth. You may also answer that the truth is what you believe to be right, the spiritual approach. However, if one's belief is based on one's opinion, and since everyone opinions differ (to some extent), it would be impossible to define one persons belief to be 'true' and another persons belief to be a 'lie'. In essence of this spiritualism and opinions cannot be the truth, since beliefs also change and conflict constantly. However if opinions are unable to certify what is true in his world, and science cannot certify what is true, would this mean that 'truth' and 'lies' are non-existent?
I apologise if this is poorly worded/explained, but it is just off the top of my head and is more of an introduction to the ideas I, and hopefully you guys, will be throwing around next week.
Although I contemplated putting up the first write-up
I did, i feel it's be better if I stick to the schedule of once-a-week (in addition to the fact that much of what I had written was too radical and dare I say, mad, looking back on it) Despite this, I ask you this:
If I asked you to tell me what is truth, would you be able to answer fully? You may answer the truth is what you know to be right, the scientific approach. However, the 'true' atom 100 years ago was different from the true atom of today. Since proof is constantly in change and fluctuation, science cannot be the truth. You may also answer that the truth is what you believe to be right, the spiritual approach. However, if one's belief is based on one's opinion, and since everyone opinions differ (to some extent), it would be impossible to define one persons belief to be 'true' and another persons belief to be a 'lie'. In essence of this spiritualism and opinions cannot be the truth, since beliefs also change and conflict constantly. However if opinions are unable to certify what is true in his world, and science cannot certify what is true, would this mean that 'truth' and 'lies' are non-existent?
I apologise if this is poorly worded/explained, but it is just off the top of my head and is more of an introduction to the ideas I, and hopefully you guys, will be throwing around next week.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
The Impossibility of Perfection
Alright First Blog...this is a very short idea that came to me about four months ago, but of which I only really bothered to share with my brother. I am aware that this theory runs on the basis of logic, and that i can be argued against with ideas such as the ability to defy logic is reserved specifically for God. With those arguments in mind, unfortunately, to me this idea just...makes sense.
Also, I would like to thank my good friend Oliver Hunt for the inspiration to start my own blog with his film blogs at http://newfilmblog.blogspot.com Whether you watch films every now and then or often, his insight into films is great and is well worth checking out, especially since the films he reviews are often relevant to today's films (eg. The Wrestler) Ok that's enough with the advertising, as the main reason for inspiration is simply just actively writing about what you love, and although I think a lot about the kind of stuff that interests me, I never really try to explain my thoughts properly...so et voila, I have a blog.
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
The Impossibility of Perfection
Note that since the meaning of ‘Logic’ is vague, and possibly unusable here, I am using it to replace the idea of that which can ultimately be achieved, or that which is possible, for the sake of making this idea easier to understand and more accessible. In addition, Perfection is refering to the ultimate perfection, the true meaning, so to speak, as opposed when someone may consider something 'perfect' for an individual task.
Take into account:
1. Perfection: The state of which one can achieve anything.
2. Impossibility: One that cannot be achieved.
3. Logic: That which can be achieved.
God is considered perfection. However, the meaning of perfection is a being that can achieve anything. By this, this means that the being would be able to defy logic itself. However, simply defying logic would not even mean perfection. It must be able to defy each and every logic, as of which it will be able to become a perfect being. But, if perfection is defined as that that defies logic, that cannot be possible, and the being that strived and succeeded in perfection has indeed defied logic, this mean that the laws of logic are themselves rewritten around the very basis of this that defies logic, and has now become logic, therefore making the being, once again, imperfect. As such, it is impossible for any being, let alone God, to indeed ‘become’ perfect, as this is an impossible concept, and a being cannot exist without itself being possible.
This argument and viewpoint is taken from the idea that we are ‘able’ to understand and comprehend any action or existence, for the sake of argument. (We are not arguing from a human standpoint, but instead from one of omniscience)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)