On 5/1/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
>
>>> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>> ?
>>
>> It isn't?
>
> No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?

Assuming I have the ability to learn, than yes I would.  Inconsistency 
would result in sheer random chaos.  Consistency, even if inaccurate, 
puts a measure of control on it.

Once consistency has been achieved, in other words we are in control of 
our own selves, then I would suggest that we set to work ironing out the 
wrinkles, and correcting are faulty logic.  This would be impossible 
without consistency.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbb6fa$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> > would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

> Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy,

I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".

I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more 
akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and 
admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if 
"chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

>> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".
> 
> I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

I'm tempted to make exactly the opposite claim, but I suppose dullness 
is in the eye of the beholder.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fbb052$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> >> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> >> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> >> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> >> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
> >>
> >> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think
he
> >> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> >
> > I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the
> > self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

> And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
> a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

You got me there, if I'm reading you right. It can of course benefit someone
if the act/thought of being concerned about the universe a few hundered
years from now makes the person warm and fuzzy inside. Homeopathy, to
incorporate another recent thread, benefits the individual if that
individual is under the illusion that it works. But if the cat is out the
bag, it stops working, and you cannot will the cat back in. I can no more
pretend that caring about the state of the universe hundered years from now
can make me feel good inside, and more than I can pretend that homeopathy
can cure my ailments. If caring about supernatural (universe in 200 years)
makes you feel good, more power to you. But that's as irrational to me as
(correct my assumption here if wrong) homeopathy is to you.

Similarly, I'm quite convinced that believing in various gods makes people
happy, and even successful. However, I still call them irrational, for their
belief is not based on the rational realization (*) that the benefit of
beliveing in god(s) is feeling good. It's a catch 22. You cannot belive in
god for rational reasons and still feel good, for the moment you realize
those reasons, the magic, that is, the reality of god, disappears. Placebo
doesn't work if you know it's saline solution.

> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I have only my definition to judge others by. Pretending to use any other
definition would be dishonest.

(*) There are those who, out of rational reasons, *pretend* to belive in
god(s). "Belief" and "pretend belief" are very different, of course.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> 
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be 
apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> > my case.

> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.

  I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
of them have very specific testaments.

> >   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> > Maybe nihilism?)

> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)

  For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.

  When people say "capitalism" the only thing they think is the multinational
megacorporations abusing poor countries because of their cheap workforce.

  However, that's only a very small side-effect of what encompasses
capitalism. That's like saying that the western schooling system is
completely corrupt because there have been cases of school shootings.

  As far as I can see, capitalism seems to be the model of economy which
works the best, especially in countries where there's a rational government
controlling it. Common aspects of capitalistic countries include things
like freedom, human rights, social security and all kinds of public services.

  One thing which seems to be relatively common in non-capitalistic
countries is the lack of freedom of its people. It seems relatively common
that in non-capitalistic countries people are opressed and basically forced
to submit.

  Capitalism might not be perfect, but as far as I can see, from all the
possibilities it seems to work best.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> > espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy,

> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

  That sounds to me a bit like nihilism.

"Nihilism is the philosophical position that values do not exist but
rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in
the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without
meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that
morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values
with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over
another."

  Might also have undertones of fatalism.

"Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of
all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.

Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:

[...]

   4. That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistance against
inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
> species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
> another species came along and bumped them off.

> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.

> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
> man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
> cause a massive die-off as well.

> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
> for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
> that our niche was vacant when we came along.

  You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.

  Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
avoidable.

  I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbcdba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something
more
> >> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> >> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> >> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

> > Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

> I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be
> apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
belive it's irrational for any individual to vote. I never did, won't.
However, I cannot advocate not voting. For while voting is irrational,
*advocating* not voting is also irrational (present company is too small,
and in any case, I have no delusions of convincing anyone even if I tried my
best). Advocating voter apathy is irrational because if too few voted, the
ensuing instability would likely degrade my quality of life. This is where
narrow definitions of consistency fail.

Of course, I may be posting here for edutainment, not because I care much
about the issues, which would eliminate the apparent paradox altogether.

Post a reply to this message