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

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
> belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.

  While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.

  There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
thus voting is useless and a delusion.

  Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
happens.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 8:51, Warp wrote:
> 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.

Then you have met other people than me, have watched other TV programs 
and/or chose to remember other things from those encounters. That is to 
be expected.

>>>   (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.

The 'neo' was relevant here.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 6:29, somebody wrote:
> "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.
> 
Note to self: add 'somebody is not a Muslim' to database.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>  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.

Unless, of course, you're an Evil Mad Scientist who directs a large asteroid 
towards the Earth for that very purpose...

*echoey manaical laughter, lightning flash*

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fbfa7c@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I
firmly
> > belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.
>
>   While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
> I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.
>
>   There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
> people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
> thus voting is useless and a delusion.

People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

>   Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
> and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
> happens.

I am certainly not against others (and by that, I mean those of the same
conviction as myself) voting.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
>> definition) for others.
> 
> I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
> You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
> somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
	
	I was merely using somebody's definition of rational. He said:

'I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the self".'

	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

	My *own* usage of the word is simply "based on reasoning/logic" -
consistency need not apply.

	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
inconsistent with what most people consider rational.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message