Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: Is it true that reading too many of the wrong books can turn a man into a psychotic doomsday prepper?” plus 5 more |
- Question: Is it true that reading too many of the wrong books can turn a man into a psychotic doomsday prepper?
- Question: Is it possible to have no ego at all.?
- Question: Does money corrupt art? Why?
- Question: Is my hypothesis regarding consciousness possible?
- Question: Is there any conflict between existentialism and humanism?
- Question: What are the basic human rights under kants moral theory and utilitarianism?
| Posted: 16 Mar 2015 08:56 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel  |
| Question: Is it possible to have no ego at all.? Posted: 16 Mar 2015 08:10 AM PDT I think it's possible though rare. I was raised as one who learned to live the life of the martyr. I was mercilessly teased and taunted in school because of things I would do during epileptic seizures but then forget I'd done afterwards. I learned to live with this because at the same time at home I had 2 sisters who were both dying of serious illnesses so their problems were more severe then mine. I have friends in church today who look at me in wonder when I tell of the times I got spit in the face and just walked on by, allowing it to go unchecked saying, "I would have smashed the guys face in!" I reminded them we were taught to turn the other cheek but they said sometimes you just can't. Hmmm. Just the other day my septic tank was replaced after having been down and unavailable to me for 3 months. I could only do small things with my water, like wash with a washcloth. People told me to move into a hotel until it was fixed but I felt okay enough with myself to stick it out where I was. I just don't fight for my rights like most people fight for theirs. But on the other hand in not doing so I don't worry about things and live a calm, peaceful existence because I don't feel I need to be any better than I am. I don't seek to better myself so am not worrying about if I can push the other guy out and get that place he's in that I covet so much. Like I say, I'm sure I'm a rare bird, but there are probably others out there like me. It probably started with a strange combination of family life and environmental conditions to create it. After all, I am now 62 years old so I've been this way for an awfully long time. |
| Question: Does money corrupt art? Why? Posted: 15 Mar 2015 11:29 PM PDT I have no connection between what a piece costs and what I think about the piece. An exorbitant price to you might be a drop in the bucket to someone else. Expensive is relative. In addition, the artist selling the work will pay anywhere from 30 - 60 percent to the gallery in which the work is hanging. Art supplies are very expensive. Framing is very expensive. It is not cheap to do art. Becoming good as an artist takes a lot of work and time. I sell my work based on prices of past sales. I'm sure some people think my work is too expensive. Other's do not. |
| Question: Is my hypothesis regarding consciousness possible? Posted: 15 Mar 2015 09:25 PM PDT If I were to see conscious as more than one thing, I would see it as a number of concepts. If I were to compare it to a complex machine, I would note the necessity of the interconnectedness of the parts. A single concept is not consciousness, and a single bolt is not a machine. That being said, they couldn't be more different in that concepts have no physical existence whereas nuts and bolts are wholly physical. I'm not sure what to make of your "We're not exactly 'living'" statement. I'm not sure if by "living" you mean biologically, or as a conscious mind; either way, I can't make any sense of it. What nonliving things are you referring to? Molecules? Concepts? Generally, I think you statements concerning the mind are on the right track. There are just a few things that are bugging me a little bit, like "just information gathered by the senses". It seems to me that there might be some kinds of information that don't fall into that category, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly they might be. And, "all working at once" doesn't seem quite right to me either; I see the mind as a stream of concepts flowing through the consciousness one at a time. I guess I equate the mind with consciousness. A thought that isn't being thunk doesn't exist, or in other words, a thought only exists in the moment that you are thinking it. It may be recorded by a neural pathway in your brain, but a neural pathway is not a thought, it is amino acids, lipids, neurotransmitters, etc. Also, I would agree that a mind cannot be formed without sensory input, but once formed, I think a mind can conti "Nature's robots". OK. I'm not sure how this relates to your other ideas. I guess I could go along with your definition of memory, but I think there may be a problem with it. Consider the fact that remembering an experience is not like the actual experience. The information is not saved verbatim; it is reworked, so to speak, and it may not even be accurate. I guess your definition of thoughts is pretty good. I'm still thinking about it. I'm not wild about your statements concerning self-awareness. "information looking at itself"? I get the gist, but I think the wording is terrible. As for "you gather not only external senses, but from the internal compilation of senses", I think it's even worse. I'm not sure what it means. I'm guessing you mean: creatures that are not self-aware use only information that they get from their senses, and have no thoughts, whereas self-aware creatures have thoughts. If that's what you mean, I guess I'm in agreement. I think of self-awareness simply as having the concept of self in mind. I think any creature with a mind has a concept of self, but some rarely have it in mind, and even humans don't always have it in mind. Therefore we are not always self-aware. Sometimes, like mindless creatures always do, we only react to, and behave according to, whatever subconscious thoughtless urge we are experiencing. |
| Question: Is there any conflict between existentialism and humanism? Posted: 15 Mar 2015 04:59 PM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel |
| Question: What are the basic human rights under kants moral theory and utilitarianism? Posted: 15 Mar 2015 03:19 PM PDT Utilitarianism just says the most moral action is the action that benefits the most people. Really it doesn't involve any rights! If killing some person made 100 other people happy then killing him would be okay! There aren't any restrictions! Having said that it is egalitarian.. So when evaluating what kind of happiness will come out of this action I wanna do (will it be moral?) I have to weigh everyone's happiness equally. Kant says that humans have a right to reason. Since we're the only animals that can reason, no one should be able to infringe on that ability we have. This means I'm not allowed to lie to someone (how are they supposed to think about what to do if they don't know the truth) I'm not allowed to harm someone's brain in any way and I'm not allowed to kill them. I'm also not allowed to coerce/threaten/torture someone (how is someone supposed to make a good decision if I'm forcing them to make it) |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Arts & Humanities: Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment