Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Ethics » The Wizard » The Wizard

The Wizard
A short story

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Wizard
ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63
Posted 10/31/09 - 12:49 PM:
quote post
#31
If your statements are inconsistant,

It is a logical fallacy.
Desidude666
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334
Posted 11/01/09 - 11:33 PM:
quote post
#32
ben_tam64 wrote:

Nature does not contradict itself.


It is a contradicting system, this Nature.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven
Desidude666
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334
Posted 11/01/09 - 11:39 PM:
quote post
#33
Cadrache wrote:


Desidude666: There may be two aspects to the linguistic function of 'arbitrary'.


So are you suggesting that linguistic references present evidence for a ethical/moral reference? Are we then looking at words, based on arbitrary outlook?
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven
Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644
Posted 11/02/09 - 04:17 PM:
quote post
#34
Gasp! You sir are skipping ahead! I'll respond to ben first.


If you are discovering then you have no knowledge of where you are going. Turning left or right at a "T" intersection does not contradict turning in a direction to get to where you are going. For every step you take - you have arrived at your destination.


Desidude666:

Outlook for me is normally under the 'response' stage from observation. As such it is the combining of different arbitrations. Arbitration only appears to be a filter in that it's sole use is to determine which filters to use. Choosing to use words is one side of arbitration. Choosing to defer to public definition is one arbitrational branch - instilling experience is the other.



The wizard only changed his state of being when he confirmed his destination; prior to leaving the village in the end.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion.
_____________________________________________

Truth is want. - The internal state of matters.

Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.
Desidude666
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334
Posted 11/03/09 - 11:31 PM:
quote post
#35
Cadrache wrote:
Gasp! You sir are skipping ahead! I'll respond to ben first.


Sorry about it, you know been so busy these days... so just making time to empower my dying intellectual batteries with philosophy...

Cadrache wrote:

Outlook for me is normally under the 'response' stage from observation. As such it is the combining of different arbitrations. Arbitration only appears to be a filter in that it's sole use is to determine which filters to use. Choosing to use words is one side of arbitration. Choosing to defer to public definition is one arbitrational branch - instilling experience is the other.


If you argue for public arbitration, aren't you then contradicting this 'filter' hypothesis? Wouldn't our own filter be the same as one that is in the public sphere? If you are educated in society, how is your own arbitration different where linguistic definition is concerned?

Cadrache wrote:

The wizard only changed his state of being when he confirmed his destination; prior to leaving the village in the end.



Wouldn't we then be stuck with a thought, rather than actually leaving? Didn't he make up his mind before even staying? Didn't he only stay because of this female? So then, he only left after this particular object of sentiment dies. How is his 'state of mind' changed? He had no affect for the others.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven
Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644
Posted 11/04/09 - 01:05 PM:
quote post
#36
Or did the wizard only ever look to the future and then acted upon it in present tense? (for clarity's sake, this particular thought is indpendent from the other parts of the discussion.)


I dislike the absolution of the external stimulus package which creates identity. A blind man should know exactly the perception of "Red" on account of red being realized within public knowledge. Yet we both likely agree that he can only perceive a mere fraction of what 'public-knowledge-red' is. (compared to every non-blind person.) For the concept - I am going to an article concerning genetics.

Seed Magazine: # 19. Dec. 2008
Extending Darwinism (pg. 25)
... Lamark proposed two mechanisms of evolutionary change; an inherent tendency in living matter to become increasingly more complex and the inheritance of acquired characteristics.....

...Collectively, the process that we believe have been neglected in evolutionary studies are known as epigenetic mechanisms. Epigenetics is a term that includes all the processes underlying developmental flexibility and stability, and epigenetic inheritence is a part of this.



Since I have not come across a better terminology yet; the public sphere decision making process is merely epigenetic arbitration. As such - this alters some of the key arguments of various great thinkers. Some stunning arguments are not much more then arguing the differences in 'shades of brown hair.' (as well as how you determine 'shade' and by what process you define hair.)



No worries about skipping ahead much. In this case I think the other side of arbitration (which we end up defining as "using a tool.") is somewhat unimportant.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion.
_____________________________________________

Truth is want. - The internal state of matters.

Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.
Desidude666
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334
Posted 11/04/09 - 11:41 PM:
quote post
#37
Cadrache wrote:
Or did the wizard only ever look to the future and then acted upon it in present tense? (for clarity's sake, this particular thought is indpendent from the other parts of the discussion.)


Again, we are on contention if this context may even be used. Can we even derive ethics from myths such as this.

Cadrache wrote:

I dislike the absolution of the external stimulus package which creates identity. A blind man should know exactly the perception of "Red" on account of red being realized within public knowledge. Yet we both likely agree that he can only perceive a mere fraction of what 'public-knowledge-red' is. (compared to every non-blind person.) For the concept - I am going to an article concerning genetics.


Agreed.

Cadrache wrote:

Since I have not come across a better terminology yet; the public sphere decision making process is merely epigenetic arbitration. As such - this alters some of the key arguments of various great thinkers. Some stunning arguments are not much more then arguing the differences in 'shades of brown hair.' (as well as how you determine 'shade' and by what process you define hair.)


Isn't it then a by-product of evolution? We aren't cannibalistic, and isn't that evidence, at least a minor evidence, to our possible genetic conformity? We are still in the process of evolution anyways, so aren't we conforming enough yet? Where does this arbitrary outlook evade evolution...?

I personally think nothing can escape evolutionary processes, not even our conscious.

Cadrache wrote:

No worries about skipping ahead much. In this case I think the other side of arbitration (which we end up defining as "using a tool.") is somewhat unimportant.


Which is the definition, I assume? Linguistic definition would be collective, and wouldn't that define our arbitrary outlooks?
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven
ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63
Posted 11/08/09 - 08:11 PM:
quote post
#38
Nature does not contradict itself.

Disorder is only percieved by the ignorant.

Depending on where you want to go, You can turn left, and you can turn right. But you cannot turn left and right at the same time.

Logic exists.
Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644
Posted 11/10/09 - 12:08 PM:
quote post
#39
You go anywheres yet Ben-tam64? Is that not the process for discussion? It would be great if we can go beyound "Since it doesn't hurt you, then you have to do it."



Desidude666:

One of the unique aspects of linguistic collective is that we insist on singularity. We grab a set of elements and then group then together on the basis of an attribute existent in all elements. (or function existing between elements.) We then arbitrate between everything that does not exist within the definition of group until we end up at a concensus. We then wonder why the validity of conclusions are so easily disproven when we examine the original elements used in any argument.


Arguing ethics from physical outcomes is about as valid an argument as arguing ethics from non-existence.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion.
_____________________________________________

Truth is want. - The internal state of matters.

Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.
ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63
Posted 11/15/09 - 03:10 PM:
quote post
#40
Disprove any of my premises, and I will accept that either of your arguments have validity.

The back bone of my argument is:

1) Nature does not contradict itself.

2) Objective reality exists.

3) Perception is subjective.

4) Morality is defined by the individual

5) Morality is subjective.

6) The wizard was right to act according to his subjective morality.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/21/09 - 06:20 AM.