MIGUELGOMEZ said:

They look like tortillas...

Number23 said:

And when two people "collide", they often make one new person...so 1 + 1 = 3 in that case...

"colliding"


omg i always wondered what it was called

I'm no good with this kinda thing i end up arguing in my own head trying to decide what is ethically right.

what would create the best out come for the most number of people the greater good!

in my own life it is easy to see what the correct choice would be for the greater good but why as a human to i feel more inclined to go for the "wrong choice" and is it wrong? I would be happy but others would be sad, do i have a responsibilty to make others happy?

Should i consider every thing i say and do as to the effect it shall have on others.

myself i don't think i have a responsibilty to make others happy but i do think i have the responsibilty to refrain from hurting others intentionally.

I'm confused where was i going with this again....

i actually wanted to discuss utilitarian bioethics but i guess this is really the wrong forum for that

lollyp0p said:

intention is probably the key here. when we can learn to love others unconditionally and accept reality, there is really nothing we can do wrong.

and of course you can't MAKE others happy - their happiness is within them.

LOOOOVE this thread! everybody's thoughts are so awesome!

What if trying to make others as happy as you can make them were what made you happy? You can learn to enjoy something
[Edited 1/26/05 8:33am]

sweetserene said:

but do you not think that imagining that you are to MAKE someone happy could be soul destroying because you really can't MAKE someone happy no matter how hard you try.

I love to do things for people to make there lives easier, more pleasent and as a knock on effect this may make them happy, but it is the action not me that did it.

like IB said you can't make others happy, happiness is something you can only do for yourself.

some people like me find it rewarding to make others lives easier and to help and try and give people a break that makes me happy,

you can't please all the people all the time though

That's why it doesn't say "make others happy" it says "make others as happy as you can make them". It's a goal that would be okay to not achieve. The point is having the goal.
I think I'm in agreement with you

irresistibleb1tch said:

Intention is the key but if i unintentionally kill someone that doesn't make me blameless,

I think alot of people plead ignorance as a get out clause, i didn't mean it, i didn't know any better so then it doesn't matter.

maybe if we all thought a little about our actions life would be a little easier

damn it i am such an idealist

sweetserene said:

i think I'm in agreement with you,

what i was trying to get across is that the way i am I hope that unintentionally my actions may have a positive effect on others but i am not going to AIM to make any one happy.

I am going to focus on doing what makes me happy while trying not to hurt others in the process, luckily what makes me happy usually has a knock on effect of making others smile

lollyp0p said:

You drinking a Coke would make me happy...lol

Mach said:

How many kids do you have, again??...

If you don't blow your own trumpet noone else will- Missy, 1999.

tackam said:

Now that's philosophical

To add my own I don't really think philosophy can be studied, largely because i believe philosophy looses value or worth once it is written down. However the ability to critically analyse a philosophical hypothesis can be written down (ie philosophical method) and ergo, studied.
[Edited 1/27/05 1:31am]

PREDOMINANT said:

What is it about writing a philosophical viewpoint down which causes it to lose value in your eyes? Why does seeing it (reading) instead of hearing it (listening) devalue what's being conveyed??...Just curious.

Byron said:

If you could see me now then you would be happy (does diet count?)

Byron said:

I guess it is just my personal philosophy, on philosophy. Unlike other forms of information (for want of a better word) I feel that philosophy lies mostly in the process of thought. Therefore once written (or I suppose spoken even) it ceases (for me) to hold the same "value" (that is not to say no value – perhaps “impact” is the word?).

For example, one of my favourite philosophical quotes

"True wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing"

Now is this sentence philosophical? Or was Socrates philosophical when he mused it?

Ugh!

Ok, how about 'quality'? Let's talk about that. Where is quality?

I don't perceive the world in terms of objects within the world, since to me there are only processes. Objects are empty of independent existence. Where is the quality in a 'beautifully crafted, expensive table'?

How about motion? Does motion exist? Can we break down the process into the motion, mover (object that moves) and try to find an independent existence for either? I posit they are both empty of independent existence. That is not to say they both don't exist, but rather than they are empty of an independent existence and instead possess a dependent conventional existence.

Trying to pin down motion is harder than u'd expect.

p0pRocks said:

Diet counts, just as long as it's Coke..lol

PREDOMINANT said:

Yet you said "Now that's philosophical" and clapped when reading tackam's written philosophical musings...lol.. ...I take it that her words still held quite a bit of value in your eyes.

Byron said:

I wouldn't drink anything else (oh apart from when i want vodka then it has to be cranberry juice or lemonade )

Fauxie said:

Are you saying that things like quality and motion do not exist outside of the processes which bring them into being attached to an object...that neither exists independently of the process of creating or moving that object??..???

lollyp0p said:

Byron said:

Why are you trying to force an argument? I never said written philosophy wasn't philosophical I just ventured an oppinion that the true philosophy comes at its genesis. After that point it is still philosophical just not "philosophy" as I believe it to be.

I thought you were a nice guy

PREDOMINANT said:

Who's forcing an argument??...This is what true philosophy's about, as tackam herself said in her post, an "application of rigorous, logical analysis to thought and belief processes"...I just applied that rigorous, logical analysis to your thuoght and belief process, that's all..lol...Doesn't mean I'm "forcing" an argument. If you don't want your thought process questioned--and on a thread about philosophy, I might add--then that's fine. But you're a bit off if you think I'm doing anything other than sticking to the intent of this thread...

Byron said:

lol Byron. Perhaps predom was looking for the philosophy thread where only agreement is found?

Byron said:

Kinda. I won't address both quality and motion, since addressing just one should be enough.

Motion is a great topic (we could just relate this to changes in general but we'll stick with the concept of motion in particular). Does it exist as an entity or property with an existence independent of that of moving things, or indeed as part of the nature of moving things? Let's say that for motion to exist there must be sometime at which it exists. Motion involves a change of position, which must occur over time. The present has no duration, meaning motion would have to exist either in the past or the future. Something that has moved only in the past is not now moving, and something that has yet to be moved is also not now moving. Where and when does motion exist? There would appear to be no time at which it would be true to say that something is moving.

If we call an object that moves a mover, does motion exist independently of the mover or as an attribute of it? When at rest do we still consider a mover a mover even when it is not moving? Where is motion then? If motion exists independently of the object it would make sense that it would continue to exist even when the mover is not moving. If independently existing it couldn't be deprived of the conditions of its existence. For this inherently existing motion to not cease we would have to call something a mover even when it is at rest. Motion would exist without a mover. Having motion follows from being a mover. Are we trying to suggest that nonmovers also have motion?

Perhaps motion is a property of the mover only at the time that the mover is in motion. This would involve an impossible multiplication of movements. If motion were a property of the mover, both must be moving. This would amount to two separate motions. Is there a motion of the motion? With two motions you would need two subjects of the motion, but since they can't be the same subject (mover would be identical to motion!) you're left with two movers in an argument trying to explain the motion of one mover.

Without a mover there is no motion. Without motion there is no mover. No analysis of either can leave the other out or ignore codependence. Neither can be used as an independent entity with which to base an analysis of the other. Both therefore are empty of inherent existence or essence. Neither can be present without the other. What appeared to be two distinctly separate entities, or one entity with the other as a property, can both be shown to be empty of inherent existence. Both have a dependent, conventional existence. Where can you make the distinction between the mover and the motion? If motion is distinct from mover it should be possible to separate motion from mover. Then we'd have motion where nothing is moving and movers not in motion. Ultimately it would seem that motion and mover both exist not as distinct, separate entities. But we cannot deny their existence completely. Motion exists as a relation between the positions of the mover at distinct times. It only exists in this convential dependent sense in that we choose to identify things that differ from each other in position over time as a single entity. This is just a matter of our making a choice. We could conceivably decide to say that entities that differ in any respect are distinct, such as me typing this now and me at the fridge in 5 minutes pouring myself a beer to numb my overworked brain! No single entity could therefore adopt different positions at different times, making motion and change non-existent.

We bring motion, mover and all changes back from the edge of non-existence by pointing to their conventional, dependent existence as highlighted in the long-winded paragraphs above, and on the convention of individuation that we typically adopt in respect to entities and their changes in position over time.

(It should be noted we could have used rest instead of motion)

Yawn. Sorry about that. I should apologise to Nagarjuna for my probably quite poor recollection and inferior presentation of his work. It is Friday evening and my mind was drifting towards the beers in my fridge.

Fauxie said:

I wasn't "looking" for anything on the thread. But disagreement doesn't make it philosophical. If anything I was looking for philosophy on the philosophy thread.