i refuse
feel free to donate bitcoins to the site

Discus?

Theism as a form of mental theft, as it were, religion as a heist of thoughts and freedom?

He's probably schizophrenic for noticing something like that.

>>184286

>Theism as a form of mental theft, as it were, religion as a heist of thoughts and freedom?

Religion is a literal heist. People have swindled shitloads of money throughout history by way of religion. You can actually earn an income wearing funny clothes and performing wacky rituals on behalf of blatantly nonexistent entities and locations (or in the case of the subjects of that Jesus Camp documentary, wacky rituals on behalf of a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=QdfHAcGl6lA&NR=1

This is what I would call "children watching their parents having a fight and thinking their parents are having a divorce".

If you think philosophy and science are at war with one another, you know nothing of science AND philosophy.

The two are intertwined, but also at odds.

Because one only cares about how, and one only cares about why. But sometimes you need someone who thinks about why to create a language to explain how.
Like how philosophy helps build understanding in neuroscience.

And sometimes you need someone who thinks about how, to get rid of useless "why's".
Like how science helped philosophy getting rid of the God problem, allowing philosophers to focus on more interesting subjects.

>>184249
I like you

Philosophy of science. Enough said.

>>184249

>god problem

>this sophistry is shit, my sophistry is gold

le

>>183726
greeks: septem artes liberales, may be related to what you are seeking.
romans: pragmatism?

there was the Classical Liberal Arts of the ancient times consisting of the Trivium and Quadrivium. That sounds like the first you described

The Servile arts sound like your second description.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598772/Trivium-and-Quadrivium-Cliff-Notes-by-Gene-Odening
Check the bottom of page 7 to see the full descriptions of what I'm talking about

Qualia, consciousness, experience, etc..

>>184225
Go back to the /qq/ section , i left you a small thing there to build upon if you wish.

I give her the dick, therefore I am.

This video might help you OP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZQRp9Mup0w

>>183687

>Philosophy seems to me the most fruitful thing to study while I'm still young.

You're misguided son.

Frankenna is better than Mckenna

>>184208
Well philosophy is a very interesting and important thing to study.
But if you want to actually study something for life you're better off studying an actual useful skill that will get you a job, and do philosophy on the side.

>>184204

>What is it that defines what a color is?

Convention.

>couldn't "red" just as easily be called "yellow"?

It could, if that were the convention. IT could also be called "zwyxphspit" if we had all agreed on that, but we agreed on "red" instead.

>What is there that would make it logically incorrect to say that "blue" is "red"?

Nothing, but nobody would understand you because we decided to call it red, and not blue.

I swear, all these stoner eleven-year-olds are really shitting up the board.

>Thinks there's only simple red/orange/blue/green etc.
>What is Pantone or any other color system

There's honestly thousands and thousands of different names for colors OP. Even different names for the same CMYK/RGB values depending on who has chosen to label it as such.

If it's a gradient, then wouldn't the center most value be the definite point? I mean, you can get a number.

>>184213

Easy, use another search engine that's not google. They do exist

but theres so many, I wanted a PSS opinion you ^$@#$

>Why do you suppose we experience?

Evolutionary advantage.

>Do you think it is a recent evolution of man,

No, just some of the types of experiences we have.

>or at least maybe the retention of experience is?

Other animals show retention of experience.

>Does experience even matter without retention?

All retention is temporary, since we will all die eventually.

>If not, I assume we whom have memory are the only ones in this ballpark.

There are people who do not create new memories, they have rather sad lives. That said, a memory is just a specific type of experience and for all you know you are reliving the same experience over and over again. How would you know? Perhaps the entire flow of time is just an illusion and past and future are fixed and the present is only a frame of reference.

OP, I'm incredibly interested in qualia myself.

>Why do you suppose we experience?

No fucking idea, that's the hard problem of consciousness after all.

>Do you think it is a recent evolution of man,

Of course not. But there's probably a minimally-evolved organism that has qualia.

>or at least maybe the retention of experience is?

Again, no. We might do it in a more sophisticated and complex way than other animals, but I believe differences are quantitative, not qualitative.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Silly goose, go quench that thirst with some Husserl and phenomenology in general.

Here, just to get you going. It can get a little dense at times, but I promise it's fun and it will help with some of your question.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

Happy trails! Let me know how it goes. Send a postcard.

>>184171
'Shotgun wedding' was a colloquialism developed for the American version of the forced wedding. The latter was common in most cultures and still is in many but you guys added the shotguns as standard practice..

>>184161
>>184159
A potential person doesn't (or in practice, shouldn't) have rights. The question of whether a "species" should is less readily apparent until you consider that it's a term for something in the future and only has to imply potential people.

You're putting the rights of hypothetical, abstract things over those of real people. Ideas like the race or the species (as causes) are basically spiritual and shouldn't be forced on people living in the real world.

>>184190

>The question of whether a "species" should is less readily apparent until you consider that it's a term for something in the future and only has to imply potential people.

No.

>>184193

>Ideas like the race or the species (as causes) are basically spiritual

Yes.

>>184190
I am reminded of an episode from this show, where the humans find a way to exterminate all Cylons. The characters are conflicted with the thought of committing genocide. The president gives the order, and Adama points out that future generations will hate them for it, she tells him, "At least there will be someone around to hate us."

>>184091
Laws against jaywalking, especially in urban, high-traffic areas, are just laws.

>Is Breaking the law ever morally justified and why?

Yes. Because laws are not created with our best interests in mind. Not only is it morally justifiable (on the grounds that it is only through the choices of an unseen and corrupt body of collected individuals that these laws are passed), under certain circumstances, it is of crucial importance to break one or more laws if you wish to prevent the occurrence of a true atrocity.

>If so under what conditions would breaking the law be morally justified?

The conditions run the gamut. They are as varied as all the individuals who have lived through out human history. But, because the laws in place today have almost nothing to do with the life of the common individual, most any circumstance would allow for a morally justified breaking of most laws, save for the ones to do with very extreme action, such as homicide or terrorism.

>Can you think of any historical examples in which breaking the law was justified and why.

Rosa Parks. Ghandi. Lenny Bruce. Absurd laws are necessarily broken so that a more sane society can emerge.

>Can you think of any historical examples in which people sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing by breaking the law but you believe they were mistaken and why do you think they were wrong.

The US had a pretty bad track record. From the looks of it, without all the rhetoric, they appear to be one of the most subversive criminal organizations in history. Murder on a massive scale, extortion, assault, terrorism, theft on a massive scale, counterfeiting (money), and all around just being a very seedy organization. Their intent was never good, however that is the message they give to the public. Some people sincerely believe ther intentions are good. I suppose the Unabomber is another one.

>>184094
>>184092
>>184089
>>184088
Hey thanks for the input guise. I had to abandon thread for a little bit because I have finals due in my classes over the remainder of this week and all next week. Needless to say I have tons of crap to keep me busy. I really appreciate the help.

>>184092
Perhaps I choose my words badly. Braking the law is not economics, where the sanction is just an opportunity cost. rather, law is part of the social contract where we transfer part of our freedom (freedom to kill others) to the freedom not to be killed by others.

>Do you believe that breaking the law like this (avoiding negative sanctions that the law says you must suffer, and/or obtaining positive sanctions that the law says you must not receive) is ever morally justifiable?

So the question basically is, is freeloading morally justifiable? It's a hard question. On the other hand, some rights are universal (thanks, Kant), and should be in every social contract, like the absolute human rights, and states obligation to provide them. This, however, is just my morals (I agree with kantian liberalism in some cases). If I think, that public humanitarian law is good and everybody else agrees, then I guess we would have social contract of all humanity.

On the other hand, some laws (states, as they enforce the laws) are bad as some humans are bad. Morals how ever are not ideals outside, but rather inside in person. If someone can justify to himself his actions, and goes within his own morals, every breach of law is morally justifiable. If ones own moral says, that this action is moral even though it's against the law, it's really just matter of persuasion to make others believe that yes, that's exactly how it is. Real life example: If law says that smoking pot is wrong, but your morals (your feel) says that it's not, braking the law without sanctions is morally justifiable.

People however are different. What suits for one, might not suit for the other. Let's say someone (hard to think of good example, using heroine, fapping to child porn, living in communist society) says that it should be a categorical rule for whole humanity, well, I guess at some point we would be either allowing everything OR allowing something and banning something. But if someone has a need to do these things that his own moral allows but society prohibits, well, there's the clash. Social contract is more about contract, and as long as the society stays free, everyone can understand that …

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Smoking weed is illegal but it leads to fun so it's morally justified to break that law.

>>183948

nha i am joking. Your alright.

>>183940

>To not believe it as a fact would be an insult to everyone who has ever been wronged.

Well, a lot of people are insulted, then.

>I mean how can you only believe in it as rules of an ideal world and still believe it as a rules of the non ideal world?

The same way I can believe that one woman is more beautiful than another.

>>183945

>If its not real its not a real rule.

That reasoning does not follow.

>>183945
I think you're misinterpreting being misunderstood as being profound. None of what you're saying makes any sense, and your lapses in common logic and English are boggling my mind.

>''MY UNPLEASANT VIEW OF MORALITY''

It's not unpleasant because it upsets my preconceived notions of what morality is, as I think you're trying to imply, but rather because its parodically idiotic. Sorry to be mean, but c'mon man.

>>184101

So you believe in moral beliefs like ''don't be a dick'' or ''don't kill babies'' ?

>>184169
VEH BELIEVE IN NOTHSINK, LEBOWSKI.