Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Philosophy itself

Page 4 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2007, 9:21 am

You seem to persist in the concept that decisions are totally free of the elements that are weighed in each choice. Social relationships are crucial element in the act of choosing. Individuals never make choices without weighing the elements and consequences of those choices. Total individual freedom in choices is a myth. Even psychotic individuals weigh elements in their choices although some of the elements may be totally imaginary.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

26 Dec 2007, 12:42 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Odin wrote:
It is impossible to gain knowledge of reality from pure reason, disconnected from empirical facts. "Meaningless" was probably not the best term I should of used, what I ment was that philosophy not connected to empirical facts is navel-gazing intellectualism, unconcerned with actual problems, and instead obsesses over pseudo-problems and/or category errors.

What makes you assume that knowledge of reality is possible in the first place or even desirable? Actual problems is also a subjective category based upon human valuation. Why couldn't navel-gazing intellectualism over pseudo-problems and/or category errors be considered more valuable than other issues, perhaps even all issues?


Knowledge of reality gives us more abillity to control the enviroment we exist in, making us more able to fulfill objective human needs like food, shelter, and physical safety. Once these objective human needs are met people are far more free to concentrate on the subjective side of life such as happiness, meaning, and self-actualization.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Dec 2007, 3:23 pm

Odin wrote:
Knowledge of reality gives us more abillity to control the enviroment we exist in, making us more able to fulfill objective human needs like food, shelter, and physical safety. Once these objective human needs are met people are far more free to concentrate on the subjective side of life such as happiness, meaning, and self-actualization.

Need isn't objective. Need only exists with the notion of a goal. If I have no goals then I have no needs. To state otherwise is to impose goals and thus subjectively posit an objective, which makes no logical sense in the terms you put it.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

26 Dec 2007, 10:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Odin wrote:
Knowledge of reality gives us more abillity to control the enviroment we exist in, making us more able to fulfill objective human needs like food, shelter, and physical safety. Once these objective human needs are met people are far more free to concentrate on the subjective side of life such as happiness, meaning, and self-actualization.

Need isn't objective. Need only exists with the notion of a goal. If I have no goals then I have no needs. To state otherwise is to impose goals and thus subjectively posit an objective, which makes no logical sense in the terms you put it.


Everyone has basic biological needs for things like food, shelter, and physical safety, conscious goals are not necessary for these needs to exist, they are instinctive.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Dec 2007, 11:43 pm

Odin wrote:
Everyone has basic biological needs for things like food, shelter, and physical safety, conscious goals are not necessary for these needs to exist, they are instinctive.

You mean needs for living. The desire for them is instinctive, but to hold life as the highest goal? Well, not so instinctive that we can take it as true a priori. People give up these "needs" for other goals. The other goals are subjective, so if subjective truths can over power objective truths then what makes the objective ones so objective? Not only that, but what makes the biological desires of others a call for action by others than that single individual? Really, you haven't solved the problem at all, you just are pretending you have and pressing forward with it. Biological desires are and "is", whether or not these should be sated is an "ought". Frankly, I might find the idea of starving children hilarious and thus reject the idea that I "ought" to do something against my subjective desire to think of actual starving children.