The Random Thoughts Thread

[Creeping Death]

*enters room and shoots*

 

[Sinny91]

*gargle gargle.... ugh!*

 

[Rixus]

[Stabs Sinny repeatedly] She was still twitching. Just making sure.

Today I have drawn the Satanic symbol of black sulphur on my milk to deter office milk theft. I usually mark it with something a little weird as I got bored of my initials. Chemical warnings like Poison and Irritant work well. It's catching. There's three bottles that look like an entire ritual between them. I'm gonna open the fridge one day and it's gonna be like Sigourny Weaver's fridge in Ghostbusters. (The thread did say random).

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Sinny91]

Ha... winning.

 

[Seteleechete]

It's funny. The black and white a story tries to appear the less it often is at least if you try to infer all the implications. Though, more likely it's simply me who is attracted to those stories(I blame Worm [https://parahumans.wordpress.com/category/stories-arcs-1-10/arc-1-gestation/1-01/] induced craze).

Has anyone ever considered orc rights in The Lord of the Rings(and other classic fantasy settings)? I tried bring it up on a fantasy "morality" panel once but it wasn't much appreciated =/. Especially when they agreed faults(if any) were due to indoctrination and I then tried to point out that ISIS was similar. Oh well.

 

[Rixus]

Isn't that why Tolkien choose Orscs? Because they're a twisted creature with very little goodness in them, the moral issues of fighting against them are not necessary. Unlike with human wars where the other soldier is simply no different from you - as Farramir mentions in the film with the Easterlings (can't remember if he did in the book). I'm not sure Orcs have the capacity to be peaceful or functional in society. ISIS, on the other hand, is all about indoctrination and threat as you suggest.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Seteleechete]

There is few good reasons to suggest that they are inherently "twisted", we just want to believe it due to appearance. And even if they are "twisted" somehow how much does it matter? A slightly more violent disposition is expected, jungle law survival requirements and all that. Though it's unknown how much of that is cultural and how much is natural. But it's not too hard to imagine a more competitive species existing.

In most settings they are capable of creating a somewhat stable and productive society either way, so they aren't exactly mindless beasts. He tries to take away the morality problem and I see it as our fault for blindly accepting that without a very thorough understanding of their situation. All we are given is "they look bad, are a bit violent and are evil".

 

[Rixus]

He gives the fact that they are born very aggressive and fully grown, kind of spawned. Plus they tend to kill each other if left unattended, they eat other sentient species and even catabolise each other. He also makes some mention in the books of how even their language is too fowl to speak. We don't see any evidence that they can function without a matter controlling them.

Maybe they could. We don't know. We don't see any evidence that they can be civilised or not.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Sinny91]

No, the Orcs were made by the forces of evil in mockery of the Elves, as were the Trolls made in mockery of the Ents...

And just Saruman made his Urak-hai in mockery of men.

I'm yet to finish all the completed works, but my current understanding is that the Orcs were wrought of evil, and continue to serve evil.

They think freely, though they are tied to their roots as any other... and dark roots are those. They know that they lack the power and brains to run the show, so they do what all lesser beings do; look for a master to serve.

I think a key difference between the forces of "evil" & "good" can be seen in stark contrast when Aragorn is asked by Pippin what hope the company has now, with the passing of Gandalf, and he states "When the Great fall, the lesser must serve"..

In regards to the service of others, that is. Whereas with the Orcs, and other evil beings, when their Great fall, they retreat back into service to self.

For they serve no purpose, beyond their own survival.

 

[Seteleechete]

He gives the fact that they are born very aggressive and fully grown, kind of spawned. Plus they tend to kill each other if left unattended, they eat other sentient species and even catabolise each other. He also makes some mention in the books of how even their language is too fowl to speak. We don't see any evidence that they can function without a matter controlling them.

Maybe they could. We don't know. We don't see any evidence that they can be civilised or not.

Cannibalism can hardly be seen as much of an issue on my eyes, maybe humans are just weird for not making use of all available resources. Neither can I see fault in internal competition's for power(violent or not), that is common even in human societies and less advanced ones were often decided by the strength of the fist.

Aggressiveness is not necessarily a bad trait for a species prolification, particularly in a multi species world. They are capable of building a domain and produce advanced tools as shown by Isengard, they probably just require strong/heavy handed central leadership. Rapid growth is just an amazing trait to have in general. And how does humans not being able to speak their language matter? Might even be tactically sound.

 

[Seteleechete]

No, the Orcs were made by the forces of evil in mockery of the Elves, as were the Trolls made in mockery of the Ents...

And just Saruman made his Urak-hai in mockery of men.

I'm yet to finish all the completed works, but my current understanding is that the Orcs were wrought of evil, and continue to serve evil.

They think freely, though they are tied to their roots as any other... and dark roots are those. They know that they lack the power and brains to run the show, so they do what all lesser beings do; look for a master to serve.

So they are evil due to their origins and/or brainwashing? Or because they respect more powerful figures as their leaders?(A common evolutionary trait that).

For they serve no purpose, beyond their own survival.

Oh c'mon, survivalism can hardly be viewed as evil. That's what every species strives for. Even individual survival can't be seen as that(maybe as stupid, but even wanting to build up the individual power base should be sufficient to keep the species alive).

I wonder if they would evolve sufficient long term planning, in time to survive as a species anyway(maybe they already have, dunno about this).

 

[Sinny91]

Well, now inevitably we debate the meaning of "evil".

I can't be bothered to go there. But the service to others/self is a whole angle to approach from.

.. Then there are whole schools of thought which transcend duality..

I dunno, it baffles me when trying to remain objective.

 

[Rixus]

It's not an evolutionary trait here, though. They were created. Made by evil to do it's bidding. (Not sure who, though, as they were around in the time of Hurin and that was thousands of years earlier). But we'll probably have that argument about AI and clones soon enough.

I think Tolkien didn't want to raise that as a moral issue, though. He wanted us to look into the simpler premise - what would happen if you could hold ultimate power in the palm of your hand?

And catabolism isn't generally practised by most species as it's so inefficient. Spiders are OK with it, though, and they've been around a while.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Seteleechete]

I am personally of the whole "there is no good or evil" view on the issue. Just causes and consequences. Well that and opinions.

I often imagine myself replying "I prefer the term selfish" if someone would call me evil.

 

[Seteleechete]

It's not an evolutionary trait here, though. They were created. Made by evil to do it's bidding. (Not sure who, though, as they were around in the time of Hurin and that was thousands of years earlier). But we'll probably have that argument about AI and clones soon enough.

Which is why I blame that on mind control. They seem like they would be perfectly functional even without the serving compulsion. Actually Westworld is bringing up those very same issues right now. I like that show.

I think Tolkien didn't want to raise that as a moral issue, though. He wanted us to look into the simpler premise - what would happen if you could hold ultimate power in the palm of your hand?

I don't really care what he intended, I always look at the story I see not the intentions of the writer behind it. The same way I care about a character in a movie but not the actor behind it.

 

[Rixus]

Well, in the real world we know there is no such thing as good and evil. Often that which is biblically justified as evil (eg - the slow painful burning of heretics in the past), can be called seriously wrong by any moral judgement. But this is just a story we're talking about where the situation was created to ask a different moral question about power and at what point you use it, now matter how dangerous.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Rixus]

Incidentally, apart from debating the nature of good and evil, what do other INTP's get up to on a Friday night? I shall be waiting until the kids are asleep before devouring an unnecessary amount of cheap strong wine whilst trawling Netflix. Year, that's pretty much usual for a Friday.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[yasasr11732]

in the real world we know there is no such thing as good and evil.

I would argue that good and evil exists, but cannot be measured without a frame of reference. By that I mean, you can't say that if something is good or evil until you specify what kind of rules you use to calculate goodness of the act. For example, religious scriptures might be considered one of those reference frames, so you can make statements such as "According to X religion, act Y is considered evil"

 

[Rixus]

Yes. But that only proves that it's not a solid concept and is only subjective. And most concepts of good and evil are based on religion, and often the rules of that religion. You could argue that modern concepts of good and evil are based on morality, but that's more right and wrong and are based on social norms, the value of human life and the infliction of suffering. All of which are values that can be imparted through nurture.

The point was whether Orcs are evil by nature. Which nothing really is in reality.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Well, who started the war in LotR? I know very little of the story. I've only seen the movies and don't really remember them.

If the orcs went around looking for trouble and starting wars... then it makes sense to fight back as self defense. Whoever was fighting because they were forced to would be said to be "in the right" and likely attract forces from the other races in the story for back up.

If you say there is no good and evil (I prefer the terms good and bad, since "evil" sounds to me like it's just good with a dark aesthetic) then you may as well make up notions that correspond to it anyway, so to me it's pointless saying they don't exist.

There's the whole argument of "good is just what is good for the person making the judgement, and evil is what hinders them" but I think the point of the notions of good and evil is to try and see things from a more global perspective.

 

[Seteleechete]

Every story can be considered an alternate reality so I can look at every story as if it was reality and question it accordingly. More to the point I kinda do that with every story.

 

[Seteleechete]

Well, who started the war in LotR? I know very little of the story. I've only seen the movies and don't really remember them.

If the orcs went around looking for trouble and starting wars... then it makes sense to fight back as self defense. Whoever was fighting because they were forced to would be said to be "in the right" and likely attract forces from the other races in the story for back up.

Such a simplistic view rarely works out. What if one race starts a war because they are in need of the other races foodstocks and there is only enough for one side to survive?

Now that is not what happened in this case but the point is that you can't simplify a matter to "they are the aggressors so they are in the wrong".

Similarly to the situation I just mentioned the orcs are at war due to a diaspora of circumstances(including their very nature) and so it shouldn't(as with most things) be viewed as a matter of right or wrong but rather as a causation of preceding circumstances.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Such a simplistic view rarely works out. What if one race starts a war because they are in need of the other races foodstocks and there is only enough for one side to survive?

Now that is not what happened in this case but the point is that you can't simplify a matter to "they are the aggressors so they are in the wrong".

Similarly to the situation I just mentioned the orcs are at war due to a diaspora of circumstances(including their very nature) and so it shouldn't(as with most things) be viewed as a matter of right or wrong but rather as a causation of preceding circumstances.

Then in that case the race being attacked would be in the right for fighting back.

Maybe if you said "the other race has enough foodstock for them both but won't share" then you could say the party attacking was in the right.

(Though, in that case you would think the ones with the food would just share rather than go to war)

 

[Seteleechete]

Then in that case the race being attacked would be in the right for fighting back.

Maybe if you said "the other race has enough foodstock for them both but won't share" then you could say the party attacking was in the right.

(Though, in that case you would think the ones with the food would just share rather than go to war)

The point is that both of them are in the right and neither is wrong. I specifically set up a scenario to present that outcome(hence there is not enough food to share).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The point is that both of them are in the right and neither is wrong. I specifically set up a scenario to present that outcome(hence there is not enough food to share).

Then that still implies that there is right and wrong...

 

[Seteleechete]

Then that still implies that there is right and wrong...

No, I simply used the terms as an allusion to show how a right-wrong dichotomy doesn't work in reality(as an exclusive either-or system). In my view going by these terms(morality wise) everyone is always right and never wrong and the terms are therefore moot.

In order for the terms to work from an moral standpoint you need to tie them to a subjective set of rules(like: starting a pointless war is "wrong").

 

[Rixus]

But why didn't the attacking race ask first if they could share? Or offer a trade instead of the huge cost of the war machine? Perhaps they needed better education in diplomacy or irrigation techniques.

But since we're there now, WW2. Who started the war? The Axis when Germany invaded Poland. Technically. We declared war on them afterwards, but the aggressive act was there's.

But Germany has suffered under the great depression worse than any of us, so it's easy to imagine how Hitler rise to power. We're the enemy soldiers evil? No. They were just human human soldiers doing there job. Was Hitler evil? Well, his acts undeniably are classifiable as such. But was he inherently "evil"? Imagine how history might have gone of he was given a course of anti-psychotics and counseling. He certainly couldn't have been born evil and I don't believe in the anti-christ theory.

This relates to the original point - whether he was redeemable under some circumstances is open for debate. But Germans? Of course they're not evil and never were. I think this originally came up as a metaphorically for this circumstance. Whether the people themselves, orcs, are evil or of it's just circumstances.

(BTW, sorry if my post isn't entirely clear which I'm not sure of - on the second bottle here and distinctly not sober.)

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

No, I simply used the terms as an allusion to show how a right-wrong dichotomy doesn't work in reality(as an exclusive either-or system). In my view going by these terms(morality wise) everyone is always right and never wrong and the terms are therefore moot.

In order for the terms to work from an moral standpoint you need to tie them to a subjective set of rules(like: starting a pointless war is "wrong").

Yes, everyone is right from their own perspective, that doesn't mean that some perspectives aren't better than others.

Whether it is a good way of judging past actions, the past can be learnt from, and the global perspective can be a good way to look at things when making decisions.

 

[Seteleechete]

But why didn't the attacking race ask first if they could share? Or offer a trade instead of the huge cost of the war machine? Perhaps they needed better education in diplomacy or irrigation techniques.

Because few societies will accept half their people starving to death. Knowing that the defenders wouldn't accept the attackers presumably wouldn't(and probably shouldn't) ask and give their opponents time to prepare.

Besides, why would the attackers be willing to accept a deal that had half their people dying of starvation in the first place? Remember there is only enough food to feed 1 full population race.

Also who said incompetence caused this to occur? Maybe a severe unexpected draught did.

 

[Seteleechete]

Yes, everyone is right from their own perspective, that doesn't mean that some perspectives aren't better than others.

Whether it is a good way of judging past actions, the past can be learnt from, and the global perspective can be a good way to look at things when making decisions.

It's not necessarily a bad perspective to tie your moral view too but it is still clearly a subjective view of things. I strive for objectivity and "truth" as much as I can when I consider thing.

This being the case calling something "evil" or "wrong" does not fit in with how I want to evaluate things. Instead I would clearly define it as "wrong from the perspective of society" as that is the most objective view I can give.

If I give an opinion there is always an implicit(and often explicit) "in my current opinion" tagged on in front of it.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

It's not necessarily a bad perspective to tie your moral view too but it is still clearly a subjective view of things. I strive for objectivity and "truth" as much as I can when I consider thing. This being the case calling something "evil" or "wrong" does not fit in with how I evaluate things. Instead I would clearly define it as "wrong from the perspective of society" as that is the most objective view I can give.

Can you really make decisions from only an "objective" viewpoint? What is the ultimate standard by which you decide something - wouldn't it ultimately come down to something subjective?

Like "well, this is right according to this society, this is right according to this other person, and this is what is right according to me so I will go with that".

Pardon the over-argumentativeness, I'm not that big on moral debates myself when it comes to specific actions. I think they can be useful though in understanding why each person did as they did, what were the factors that could have better been looked at in coming to a better decision, which choice would have worked best for the whole picture etc.

I just think that right versus wrong is at least an implicit consideration in all decisions, and the subject is vital for the task of improving decision making.

 

[Seteleechete]

Like "well, this is right according to this society, this is right according to this other person, and this is what is right according to me so I will go with that".

That is pretty much exactly what I do(except I use "I feel like", "I want to" or " I think it's the best option" instead of "right").

I want to try and view things as objectively as possible but I make decisions based on my subjective opinion. Note the "want", "try" and "possible".

Also I like over argumentation, feel free to ask me anything. The more personal, the more I will likely enjoy answering it(as long as the question isn't overly stupid/silly).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That is pretty much exactly what I do(except I use "I feel like", "I want too" or " I think it's the best option" instead of "right").

I want to try and view things as objectively as possible but I make decisions based on my subjective opinion. Note the "want", "try" and "possible".

Also I like over argumentation, feel free to ask me anything. The more personal, the more I will likely enjoy answering it(as long as the question isn't overly stupid/silly).

I just mentioned the argumentation bit since it felt like things would start to go around in circles if I didn't.

So, what is your understanding of the terms right and wrong (and/or good and bad/evil)? And given that you make decisions based on your subjective opinion anyway, why do you see it as not worth considering?

 

[Rixus]

I don't though the concept of good and evil is really subjective on the count of necessity as in the example. If the apocalypse ever occurs and my neighbour has food, and my kids are hungry, I'm gonna kill my neighbour and take his food. Let's not pretend otherwise - survival is survival. That's just nature.

But that's highly unlikely to ever be a predicament I'm in. The normal state of our lives is not life or death like that. We define evil as doing atrocious things without need. Needless cruelty.

And I think that's the difference we're talking about here - orcs are needlessly cruel and enjoy it. But that's all subjective, again. I base my own definition of morality on my own interpretation, in answer to your question. I see no need for cruelty so I never engage in it. But who knows what would happen in specific life or death circumstances. In hyperthitcal arguments we never get the full story and it's never realistic and that's the point - in reality never do you get only enough just enough produced of anything. You either have surplus or not enough.

I have absolutely no idea where I'm going with this. I'm just babbling, I think. This is why people don't drink with me. I once decided after an entire litre of vodka between two of us that a philosophical interpretation of the theory of quantum multiple universes was pertinent to the conversation. Apparently it wasn't at the time.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Seteleechete]

So, what is your understanding of the terms right and wrong (and/or good and bad/evil)? And given that you make decisions based on your subjective opinion anyway, why do you see it as not worth considering?

Right or wrong are subjective opinions. "I feel eternally torturing someone is wrong", "some zealots believe eternally torturing someone is justified", "Society thinks eternally torturing someone is wrong".

They are all opinions and one of them is mine. Note that I still used "feel" for my opinion as "think" would have been less objective, though not wrong because I think so due to my feelings(it just instantly goes one step deeper in my reasoning).

In this case my opinion "wrong", is still a causation of my thinking/feeling and not an absolute term. These things are worth considering in my opinion I just prefer to do so objectively. (I believe most things are worth considering).

Also for a lot of things I answer "I have no strong personal opinion on the matter".

Also just because I think it's "wrong" doesn't mean I won't do it. It just means I have a negative opinion/disposition in regard to the matter in question. "I should not just get free money" but I would still accept it.

 

[Rixus]

Seteleechete - I think Zealots torturing people to death can only be done if they believe that person is no longer human as they believe a person of such a questionable faith is so evil as to not be human. And that's how this relates to religion IMO, and how good and evil, isn't really a concrete concept and only subjective.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Seteleechete]

As I said, they believe it is justified and that is their subjective opinion. I didn't say it was evil I just pointed out their stance. My stance is that I feel doing so is "wrong" but I concretely reference that it is based on a subjective feeling. It also shouldn't be seen as anything more than that, an opinion based on emotion.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Right or wrong are subjective opinions. "I feel eternally torturing someone is wrong", "some zealots believe eternally torturing someone is justified", "Society thinks eternally torturing someone is wrong".

They are all opinions and one of them is mine. Note that I still used "feel" for my opinion as "think" would have been less objective, though not wrong because I think so due to my feelings(it just instantly goes one step deeper in my reasoning).

In this case my opinion "wrong", is still a causation of my thinking/feeling and not an absolute term. These things are worth considering in my opinion I just prefer to do so objectively. (I believe most things are worth considering).

Also for a lot of things I answer "I have no strong personal opinion on the matter".

Also just because I think it's "wrong" doesn't mean I won't do it. It just means I have a negative opinion/disposition in regard to the matter in question. "I should not just get free money" but I would still accept it.

So is it a feeling then, just a reaction to a particular action, such as a feeling of disgust?

Or is it like, wrong means "should not be done" and "should" just means "in this circumstance, do this" and whereas usually it would be said "do this to achieve X", we could then follow a chain of reasoning "achieve X so that Y" with the end of the chain of reasoning being "because that is good", so "should" means "do because it is good". That is how I see it, anyway.

 

[Seteleechete]

"do because it is good"

Feels not is. "is" implies that I convey that something is universally true, which I don't. I explicitly intend for my opinion to be expressed as just that, my subjective opinion and not an universally objective statement. What you did was a misinterpretation of the intentions behind my statement if not the exact wording.

So is it a feeling then, just a reaction to a particular action, such as a feeling of disgust?

Seems accurate, yes. (I got so caught up in trying to decipher the paragraph that I missed this statement, lol.)

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Feels not is. "is" implies that I convey that something is universally true, which I don't. I explicitly intend for my opinion to be expressed as just that, my subjective opinion and not an universally objective statement. What you did was a misinterpretation of the intentions behind my statement if not the exact wording.

Seems accurate, yes. (I got so caught up in trying to decipher the paragraph that I missed this statement, lol.)

Then what is the ultimate basis for choosing one choice over another? Is there ultimately nothing, and it just comes down to a sequence of choices done because the agent felt like doing them, with no ultimate measuring stick for determining whether the choice was, err, well chosen, or not?

So the only measures could be "this choice made me $X, rather than the other choice which would have made $2X, so, the choice was inoptimal based on the goal of maximising $$$", and other such objective measures, but there could be no final measure?

Certainly, even if that be the case, there could be made definitions of right and wrong which can be made into objective measures, such as the utilitarian one of maximising happiness (assuming we get a definition of happiness) so it still can be objective.

 

[Seteleechete]

Then what is the ultimate basis for choosing one choice over another? Is there ultimately nothing, and it just comes down to a sequence of choices done because the agent felt like doing them, with no ultimate measuring stick for determining whether the choice was, err, well chosen, or not?

So the only measures could be "this choice made me $X, rather than the other choice which would have made $2X, so, the choice was inoptimal based on the goal of maximising $$$", and other such objective measures, but there could be no final measure?

Certainly, even if that be the case, there could be made definitions of right and wrong which can be made into objective measures, such as the utilitarian one of maximising happiness (assuming we get a definition of happiness) so it still can be objective.

I am nihilistic so no I don't have and there doesn't need to exist a "final measure". I am not saying that using right/wrong is a bad thing just that it isn't as objective as if you didn't. I don't believe that being as objective as I am in my thinking is conductive to achieving a productive goal such as maximising happiness.

In fact the most logically sound decision I could make would be to try and think less objectively. The thing is I don't want to, I relish in trying to be as objectively sound as I can in my analysis, be it of myself or the world around me. I simply do not want to give that up for some supposed promise of a more "productive/positive" line of thinking.

Not that it has to stop me from trying to achieve positive goals just that it doesn't seem to be helpful in such endeavors. It is after all well known that the way you choose to think and how successful you are in achieving your goals is directly correlated. Think positively and you will be happy ect. But I still want to maintain the line of thinking "if I think positively I would be happier/more likely to succeed" while refusing to actually give up the objectivity to do so.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I am nihilistic so no I don't have and there doesn't need to exist a "final measure". I am not saying that using right/wrong is a bad thing just that it isn't as objective as if you didn't. I don't believe that being as objective as I am in my thinking is conductive to achieving a productive goal such as maximising happiness.

In fact the most logically sound decision I could make would be to try and think less objectively. The thing is I don't want to, I relish in trying to be as objectively sound as I can in my analysis, be it of myself or the world around me. I simply do not want to give that up for some supposed promise of a more "productive/positive" line of thinking.

Not that it has to stop me from trying to achieve positive goals just that it doesn't seem to be helpful in such endeavors. It is after all well known that the way you choose to think and how successful you are in achieving your goals is directly correlated. Think positively and you will be happy ect. But I still want to maintain the line of thinking "if I think positively I would be happier/more likely to succeed" while refusing to actually give up the objectivity to do so.

Well, it could be that sticking to your way of doing things is conducive to some other goal, perhaps a feeling of self-satisfaction in knowing that you are doing things according to your own beliefs.

My own view of morality, at least currently, is semi-nihilistic, in that it asserts that most choices are basically equivalent, however still has an inherent notion of value. From this as a starting point, it opens up the rest of the avenues of approaching questions of morality, although I recognise the limitedness of my own, as well as anyone else's, views, and so I feel free to comment on other matters of morality without necessarily referencing my fundamental theory of the value of experience.

 

[Seteleechete]

Well, it could be that sticking to your way of doing things is conducive to some other goal, perhaps a feel of self-satisfaction in knowing that you are doing things according to your own beliefs.

Really, this is why I often think of myself as an idealist rather than a realist even though the idealistic view I follow is realism. I have a hard time placing myself in reference to that dichotomy. Maybe I follow both and am just impractical instead? More likely it just shows that idealism-realism is a false dichotomy instead.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Really, this is why I often think of myself as an idealist rather than a realist even though the idealistic view I follow is realism. I have a hard time placing myself in reference to that dichotomy. Maybe I follow both and am just impractical instead? More likely it just shows that idealism-realism is a false dichotomy instead.

I would say that idealism is the attempt to interact with reality based on an internally held vision, whereas realism would deal directly with the world around based on how it is.

 

[Seteleechete]

I would say that idealism is the attempt to interact with reality based on an internally held vision, whereas realism would deal directly with the world around based on how it is.

Mm, in which case I would probably count as an idealist. I guess it depends on which precise definitions you have. Whether you see the dichotomy as a theoretical exercise or as based on practical action.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Mm, in which case I would probably count as an idealist. I guess it depends on which precise definitions you have. Whether you see the dichotomy as a theoretical exercise or as based on practical action.

I guess, as an idealist, I see the dichotomy as pretty much theoretical.

Still though, it has the potential to shape my behaviour.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Then what is the ultimate basis for choosing one choice over another?

An organism's imagination opens up to itself the perception of possibilities. From there, the balance of drives within the organism orientate it towards an attempt at fulfilling a possibility or a set of possibilities.

The possibilities can be related to a few things, namely: survival, ideals, emotional needs & states, fears, and so on. Every possibility, can be, depending on the organism, within reach, or outside of reach. That is, they can be, realistic, or fantastical.

What this means, is that choices (i.e. values) are physiological, or, organic in nature (which IS an objective reality.)

Nihilism detaches and equalizes experience using abstractions (the majority of nihilists, excluding the logically consistent ones who commit suicide, act in contradiction to their own belief system; in reality, they are just overwhelmed hedonists.)

 

[Sinny91]

The point is that both of them are in the right and neither is wrong. I specifically set up a scenario to present that outcome(hence there is not enough food to share).

Well, the aggressors in your scenario do not sound evil, but certainly misguided.

Why have they ran out of their own stocks? Why do they not receive the stock as a gift? Why do they have no Allied Treaties? They shall reap what they sow.

And by your scenario, that would be destruction.

Evil is subjective, but for many people, we can all agree on what we deem abhorrent... I think the realm of spirit plays a keys part. (Another concept to be picked apart and defined , until you are contented).

There's a relevant article I shared the other day, I'll see about relocating it, I need my memory jogging in regards to the concept I envision.

 

[Tannhauser]

the majority of nihilists, excluding the logically consistent ones who commit suicide, act in contradiction to their own belief system.

How so? If there are no values then committing suicide is not preferable over any other action.

 

[Seteleechete]

Nihilism detaches and equalizes experience using abstractions (the majority of nihilists, excluding the logically consistent ones who commit suicide, act in contradiction to their own belief system, in reality, they are just hedonists.)

Just because nothing truly matters doesn't mean that we don't exist or feel in the now. I see nihilism as an answer(or rather acknowledging the lack of one) to some of the "ultimate" questions but that doesn't preclude that joy can't be had anyway. Basically hedonism and nihilism don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

What this means, is that choices are physiological, or, organic in nature (which IS an objective reality.)

The nature of the choices don't preclude how the choices appear to function to me and they appear as abstract choices as such I don't see the fault on acting upon them as of they were. Particularly when abstract thought can influence them through organic intermediaries.