morosophos

On account of the great controversy surrounding all issues pertaining to religion, on account of vast digression of subject, on account of the same explanations (repeated many times over) not satiating the demand of the original question, and on account of the designated Christian fanatic having spoken, there must be a different approach to the issue. Religion and science are fundementally disparate. Not in the sense that religious doctrine and scientific law cannot be compatible (for they can be, if you let them), but in the realm of subject. The two disciplines have differing opinions on what is true. As for science, empirical data and proven rational fact are true. Religion pursues an ethereal truth; what can feasibly explain the purpose and meaning of the universe is true. Science is an explicit discipline, its nature is very evidential. That is to say, science justifies its truth with evidence, and that evidence is easily seen and understood by the senses. By compiling vast catalogues of evidence, science begins to construct theories on the relation between all the evidence, which then becomes theory, and theory into law. At that time, theories and models can explain what is true, giving birth to even more theories and laws. Science, at its heart, expands upon what is perceived directly by the senses. Therefore, science cannot ever deny nor confirm the existence of God, unless there is perceiveable evidence. Any proof for or against God is not scientific, but philosophical. By contrast, religion is philosophy?or more specifically?metaphysics. Philosophy does not gather empirical evidence to be strung together into models, theories, and laws. Philosophy rather constructs worldviews, whose origins are not evidential nor even need to be perceiveable. These worldviews are the foundations for other things that one often finds in religion as well: morality, a liturgy, and a sense of purpose. No one sees science giving moral instruction, for that is not the place of science, just as no one sees the Dalai Lama processing proudly from his hut with the AIDS vaccine. Theology and metaphysics govern the highly-flexible laws of religion, which seeks unpretentiously to discover the meaning of life. If one were to suppose completely hypothetically (as one must, since there is at least one here who would disagree that there ever was in fact such a time) that there was a time that the universe existed with life therein yet without human presence, then there would still be perceivable evidence that science would have otherwise used in its workings. Tangible objects exist with or without someone there to see it. However, this is not the case with theology and metaphysics. Because philosophy is not tangible, but the brainchild of humanity, philosophy exists only insofar as there are people. But if there is no person alive to contemplate theology and metaphysics, then there exists neither theology nor metaphysics. God for monotheists is the summation of theology; He is the metaphysics. Conceptually then, God appears at the beginning of human contemplation, and likewise He will perish upon the boundary of human perception. To be fair, if one is going to theologize, one must theologize within the same theology. In the case of determining God's source, one must work within the rules and limits of monotheism. Monotheism holds that God is the culmination of metaphysics, that spirituality is necessarily relationality with God. God Himself then effectively becomes metaphysics in its essence. Recall that metaphysics is only the object of contemplation, and the problem is uncovered: how can one contemplate that which is, by the postulates of monotheism, outside cogitation? At that point one begins to look for the origin of not only his own, but all humanity's psyche. This of course cannot be found, since one can only think what there is available to be thought upon, that whose existence coincides with that of the tool (the psyche) that comes to analyze it, and no more. If anyone denies the origin of God altogether, then that one is not working within the monotheistic boundaries, which prohibit a definite answer, though the very purpose of monotheism is to affirmatively propose a single deity. Denying God is accepting another philosophy, such as mine, which holds the universe itself as infinite rather than a deity. Concrete responses to the question of God's origin can only be reached through extra-monotheistic philosophies.

The origins of God are a curious concern. If one concludes that God has no beginning nor end and at the same time that God still exists, there is an easy method to show that God would be superfluous in the creation of the world. God has no progenitor; God has existed through all time, principally because God transcends time. The question of God's birth is irrelevant, then, since God was "begotten" rather than "born." There is no reason to believe that the universe could not have been "begotten" from itself without God. Francis S. Collins brings up in his book, The Language of God (overall a very silly book for its intention, but there is some rationality to some of its points yet), the insult to reason that is stuffing every gap in modern knowledge with divine intervention. Dr. Collins calls this perspective on God as one who conveniently fills-in all the unknowns in science a "God of the gaps" perspective. Gaps include "missing links" in evolution (a major topic in his book), which he maintains is a very feasible, factual method of explaining the change of species over time. A God of the gaps perspective would apply God to anything that could not be explained rationally at that time. For another example, if one were confounded as to the migratory patterns of birds in trying to explain how the flocks reliably fly to the same places each year, that one may explain it with divine intervention: "God whispers the directions in the ears of the birds." Creation is itself a "God of the gaps" situation. Anyone who believes in some degree of science perceives that at one time, all the universe may have existed in a tight ball of matter and energy. For the scientific believers, they may at this point posit that God created this volatile ball just so, so that a young cosmos might result a billion years later. The creation of the mass prior to "the Big Bang" is to-date unexplained by modern science, and perhaps its source may never be discovered. However, putting God at the foot of creation is still "God of the gaps." This could be another case where "I don't know" turns into "act of God." After all, is it more reasonable to believe that human ignorance keeps the origins of the universe off-limits, or that an invisible, transcendent, and supernatural being magically created everything from nothing? Occam's razor has faith-shattering implications.

The Functions of Suicide If suicide possessed a 100% success rate with the full intention of ending the self, it would be a far simpler issue. However, there are many other factors that contribute to suicidal thoughts: suicide is a more sophisticated issue than just killing oneself. Although it is easy to imagine that the suicidal mind is far from reasonable, such a mind is many long strides from deciding that its own destruction for destruction's sake is favorable. Very few people commit suicide in order to experience death (with exceptions permitted for radical cults), but rather death is a medium to end the suffering in life. The situation is such that life in unbearable, not such that death is favorable. Suicide is not so much destructive as fugitive. When life seems to be unsustainable, death becomes a viable alternative to the endurer. Suicide has even uses outside of ending suffering. Many who attempt suicide observe that others who had the same endeavor received attention, having been grieved over by their families and having received elaborate burials. Such ceremonies contort suicide into an honorable exit, making suicide attempt appear even more appealing. Some people enter into suicide attempts not to kill themselves, but to feign the will to end themselves; they are not mentally ill so much as desparate for attention. Legal Implications The nature of law and punishment is corrective; the judicial system strives to mould the perpetrator into a just creature who abides by the law. Although arguably many sentences feed the purpose of revenge (such as in murder cases, or any other situation where there is a severe offence), rulings by a court are ideally related to the motive of the perpetrator. Having analyzed the motives, one can see that there is not any one punishment justifiable in all suicide cases. Obviously if the offender completed the suicide, there is not much punishment he can sustain. If the offender attempts suicide because life is unbearable, this is mental illness. Not often does it occur that affairs are truly so grim that death is a better alternative to life, yet one suffering through those things may think otherwise. As far as the sufferer is concerned, he or she is making the logical choice and probably one that is beneficial to the most people (If I were not born, the world would be a better place, etc.). As other mentally ill persons, he or she should see psychiatric specialists and counseling?not be met with prison, fines, or deprivation of privileges on account of the law. If the offender attempts suicide for the sake of getting attention, the offender is not mentally ill, only desparate. Desparate people who end their lives because they are unbearable are not the same kind of desparate: they possess mental complexes that inhibit them from seeing the good in their lives; the source of the problem is from within the mind. Contrarily, those who attempt suicide have reasoned that the attempt will gain attention, and they never complete suicide, nor attempt it in private. Because there is no mental illness, their crimes (crimes that are the only real crimes in suicide) must be differently handled.

The word illogical lends itself to mean "contradicted by logic," even though the contruction of the word itself simply implies "not logical." Obviously you take the latter meaning of the world to mean the same thing as my exo-logical, meaning "outside logic," or dealing with justification through means irrelevant to logic. I only avoid illogical so as not to miscontrue my meaning as the former definition. Such confusion is only a matter of semantics. As for a static logical "true/false" state, this can be easily broken. Even if a statement cannot be evaluated as either true or false, there does not need to be a special system of "quasi-logic" to understand it, since logic can also be "fuzzy logic," having many different values between true and false. Fuzzy logic differentiates between different levels of truthfulness, rather than simply having to deal in absolutes. For instance, if one had to make a decision as to if a bacterium or a ball-bearing bullet were "large," it would be truer to describe the bullet as large, although neither one would normally be considered large by themselves. This is because size is relative, and logic adapts itself for the purpose. Fuzzy logic is important to comprehend, because it allows for very refined handling of justification. One statement can be truer than the other, although neither of them are the truth. However, fuzzy logic is superfluous to the search for alternate justification, an exo-logical (or for you, illogical) source.

This is an oversimplification of the issue at hand, for two reasons: (1) not only does altruism not exist in its own right, but also wickedness is not part of reality; and (2) morality is not so much a "way" or tool so much as it is a complex. That humanity is neither good nor evil by nature does not state implicitly or explicitly that humanity does not benefit itself by being generous. Altruism, although impossible to attain in purest form, is still not the most ignoble amongst impossible goals. Even pseudo-charity works for the advantage of everyone; feeding starving children in Africa preserves the human species; the processors, marketers, farmers, harvesters, machiney used thereby, and all other parties who had a hand in the product of that food benefit; the giver obviously satiates some psychological want. To say that morality "is a way by which our ... selfish natures are disguised" means that morality has the purpose of obfuscating the human motive. If morality evolved for any reason in particular, it is that morality encourages humans to act in a more philanthropic self-interest than they would without morality. Moral human beings have distinct advantages over the immoral. For instance, if there were a secluded group of early h o m o sapiens that lived in a harsh environment, with sharp blustery winters and frequented by violent hail storms, its foremost need would be shelter. They may live in a wooded area, but the trees that grow are very firm, to such an extent that it takes several strong men to pull one down, and even more to split it into the planks to build proper shelter between the intermittent summer storms or the hasty arrival of winter. If the members within the group have a helpful instinct, then shelter they will have, else out of their own self-righteousness they will perish, not living to bear children to carry on their genes. In this way, humanity's deep capacity (though not deep possession of, since this has many other variables) for morality is possibly genetic.

You have mechanical sensory perception confused with artificial intelligence. A camera, microphone, and an i-pod bound together haphazardly with duct-tape do not qualify as a machine that can see, hear, and feel with an understanding of meaning.AI far more sophisticated than many perceive. Although in recent years video games have exhibited limited forms of artificial intelligence, where the computer has been given the role as antagonist, making its own decisions based on limited data and stimuli from the human player, the multidimensional cognitive awareness that looms threatening over human existence is currently looming somewhere far remote. "Smart bots" do not exist, and they may not exist for another couple decades, if not much, much longer.

A contrario, it is perfectly acceptable to qualify one statement with one system of logic that eludes another system. The entire purpose of a system of justification is, after all, to point to a truth that should be reachable by either means. Clearly one cannot justify logic with logical arguments; such is like justifying the Bible by giving quotes from scripture. The argument is circular and the philosopher accomplishes nothing with his arguments, since nothing significant can amount from the proofs. The way to justify logic, then, would be to approach it by another exo-logical system, though not necessarily an illogical system. All methods of reasoning, logical or otherwise, have a foundation to which the thinker applies his observations, which are kneaded and reshaped by the tenets of the method, until at the other end are reassembled the results. For logic, this foundation is postulates and dogmatic rules. For emotional appeal, it is emotional response. In order to justify logic, there can be no solid rules for thought, since this resembles too closely to logic anyhow. Rather, there must be an alternative course onto the truth of the matter. When I speak of "justifying justification," I surely mean justifying the propositions that logic itself would posit. My previous example merely serves to exemplify the problem of a logical analysis of logic. If logic cannot justify itself, then what excuse is there for logic to have a place on the human cerebral shelf? Moreover such an excuse cannot have the sound guidelines that logical system had assured reason previously, for these do not lay an exo-logical basis for reason. Thinking outside logic requires one to abscond from the realms of nearly three thousand years' western philosophy.

The problem with justifying logic itself is that logic is a system of justification, thus one would be justifying justification. If justification must me justified, then there must be (1)no evident contradictions to a justification and (2)supporting evidence for justification. The latter continues indefinitely: logic is validated by one statement, which in turn must be proven valid by another, that statement by another, and so on. Therefore, there must be an infinite number of justifications in order to justify reason. However, one can argue that there is a limit to which something can be justified, that there is a point where evidence is so implicit that there is no need for justification. Take, for instance, oneself. The idea of self is implicit enough that it hardly needs justification, no matter how many meditations on however many philosophies DeCartes thinks is necessary. If I do not exist, then there is no point in my pondering it, much less anything else. Therefore, something as basic as self does not need didactic justification. [more later]

What separates humanity from other animals on the planet is the ability to think. Thinking itself has many uses, including persuasion, problem-solving, and the satisfaction of curiosity. Thought expands heady subjects and concerns grave objects, and so thought is itself of great significance, and so thought cannot be treated lightly. It is implicit that thought needs guildlines in order to be productive, or else cognition would be chaos with no end; thought needs a basis of some sort: it needs justification. Even before the days of Plato, western civilization has placed great weight upon logic. Logic became a tool by which to evaluate the truth, and truth in turn became the adornment of what should be followed and believed. Illogical statements cannot be believed because they are not validated by rational means, and therefore they are not perceived to hold truth. What if, however, I were to contest that one should follow not what is logical, but what appeals the most emotionally? Even emotions need not usurp the place of logic, but instead you may as the reader insert anything into the place of emotion: whim, hallucinations, anything illogical. After all, Plato gave three tools to persuasion: logos (logic), pathos (emotional appeal), and ethos (validity of rhetoric). The reason the west is preoccupied with logic is because of the powerful impact of Aristotle, who is the namesake of Aritotelian logic. Even while Aristotle was inculcating logic in the mind of the western world, many of his contemporaries were vehemently rebuking the system of thought, writing paradox after paradox to elucidate the faults inherent in Aristotle's system. Some of the more famous ones are Zeno's paradox of the arrow (in which Zeno seems to prove that motion is impossible) and the infamous liar paradox (modified version of Epimenides's original paradox: THIS SENTENCE IS FALSE.) Therefore, on what basis, if not logic, may thought be justified?

As far as I know, the so-called Christmas tree originated from the barbarians who lived in what is now Germany. The barbarians, as they were colonized by the Romans, were exposed to the mainstream culture, and more importantly vice versa. The tree itself may have come from the closeness to nature of that area's religion, or perhaps it was a phallic symbol. Either way, the Romans adopted it into the custom of Saturnalia, along with holly and garlands.Christianity, as it was rising out of obscurity with approval of Constantine, sought a way to gain the favor of an entire empire. Taking away all the merry "pagan" customs of the people while establishing institutions that, as far as the people were concerned, were the products of a religious cult would have been quite unpopular. Therefore, Christianity superimposed its own customs on top of the pre-existing pagan ones, so the festivities already set in motion might continue without conflict. Such is the case of Christmas. The birth of Christ is estimated to be in the spring, yet the date of Jesus's birth is placed on December 25 because of the uncanny proximity to Saturnalia, the feast honoring Saturn.Being that Christmas was dropped on top of Saturnalia, the customs of Saturnalia even continued through Christmas. Holly, Christmas trees, merrymaking, and even naked caroling in England until Oliver Cromwell, were part of Christmas festivities.

The beginnings of truth start in curiosity. Curiosity is the driving force by which humanity explores the nature of the world, looking for answers regardless of foundation. For instance, religion has no logical basis, yet it still lives on in the world, whereas gravity has logical basis in Newtonian physics. Despite their differences in basis, they are both the children of curiosity, and they are both accepted widely by their audiences. When mass propaganda (e.g. "The sun orbits the earth") is pervasive, it is also widely accepted as the truth. Perception is in all cases the standard of evaluation; philosophers scritinize superstition and scientific fact alike based wholly on human experience. From human perspective, therefore, there can only necessarily be the truth that is perception.If one steps outside the human psyche, however, there seem to be two distinct truths. There is the truth that everyone widely and readily (common truth), and there is the objective truth that never ceases to be true, whether it is discovered or undone by fallacious beliefs of humans. The latter, however, is irrelevant because truth as understood by man can never extend beyond his observation, and even if he should claim to unite his own observation and what he supposes is objective truth by proofs, he must assume that his proofs have objectively true premises, and the premises have true postulates in turn. The only truth than can possibly concern anyone is the truth related to perception.One might also consider that there are two kinds of conceptual truth. What if, for instance, there is a widespread intentional lie that pervades a community? One truth is held by those who spread the lie, and those at the butt of the lie percieve a different reality. Truth is true, as is obvious, but it is also necessarily the highest grade of truthfulness possible. Because it is at the same time possible for humanity to grasp a higher kind of truth than that of the lie, the truth covered by the pretense is reality, while the lie itself is a lie. However, those who take in the lie will still believe it to be the truth. The truth is then subjective to the unfortunate receivers; Vladimir Lenin stated once: "A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." However, reality always remains that which is hidden by the lie. Ironically, the perjurers may not possess the objective truth, being ultimately false themselves.

Pardon me while I fail to understand how the capitalist wealth gap justifies war. Your argument that "war makes sense" is founded on the idea that war generates economic flow from the taxpayer to the arms dealer, which is a wonderful deal if one is an arms dealer. However, census reveals that very few members of our population are actually arms dealers, even taking into account however many of them deal under-the-table, concealing their true occupations from the eyes of Uncle Sam. Unless one sells weapons, war as an economic catalyst is a bad thing. Some would argue, however, that war generates revenue on other levels of society than just the weapon-producing sector. This takes into account not only the industries of weapons themselves, but also the materials from which the bombs and missiles were crafted, the work required to generate enough power to maintain the facilities, even the increased needs for items like produce to satiate the appetites of ardent workers. There is a trail to the frenzy, a money trail, by tracing which reveals the nature of this economic spike. First there are the weapons: bombs, missiles, ships, planes, etc., all of which are costly and labor-intensive in their assembly. As you have stated, the state foots the bill, throwing vast amounts of money into warfare (according to ?Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007,? the United States government plots to spend $439.9 billion on the military budget, though the United States has recently been separating its budget into a defense budget and a military at-large budget, in order to appeal for even more funding). The money the government spends comes from its citizens, who support the system with their taxes. Therefore, any spike in the economy occuring after the first point in the trail is at the cost of the citizen. The materials and energy required for making the armaments is payed ultimately by the citizen; the fuel necessary to run the machines rapes the wallets of the masses; the housekeepers to watch the homestead while the tenants fight the war suck their salaries from the people. And though meanwhile the nation seems to fund itself, with each citizen participating in the economy: contributing to the war (loss), balanced with salary and benefits (gain), the cash-flow is effectively from one another's pockets. This is especially detrimental when?as you mentioned?the worth of a bomb cannot be recycled when they explode. The government tries to mask loss with loans, which are repayed at great expense for years and years post bellum. Hence, there is a net economic loss to war. Even if there were an economic gain to war, this does not justify brutal slaughter, since one must consider the price of life v. the dollar: I hear the exchange rate is not favorable yet. Most people are part of the middle-class, which pays dearly for everything the government claims to do on its behalf, and countless books and documentaries have been published regarding the state's abuse of the poor in wartime. Most people agree that justice is the greatest good for the greatest number, in which case war, which benefits a very small number of people, is not just.

In order for true service to have a vital impact upon the world, it has to be continual and selfless. Continuity is essential because benefaction is a process rather than one solitary deed; social justice, for instance, while possibly including the drop of change into a panhandler's mug, is not limited to it. The person who drives the service must therefore be committed to what is to be done, or else there is no cause preventing him from dropping service. This also suggests that selflessness is necessary for service. Service can include either direct labor or management, but both require work, usually without return. That is, service is often a job without payment, other than any ethereal or spiritual growth that may naturally come with such service. It would be foolish for a person to commit to community service expecting yield for himself; after all, community service concerns aiding the community, rather than oneself, at least directly. In order for there to be either of the two requirements to have real service (continuity and selflessness), there must be a compelling force exhorting the performer of service. A sole driving force originating from the world outside is the influence for service; the force may take any form: emotional, mental, or societal. For instance, compassion (an emotional force and response to suffering) is often an excuse for service. People are moved by the pathos of poverty, or else some other injustice. Perhaps someone like Mother Theresa may be classified in this way, who cared for the impoverished in India without regard for herself. Contrarily, we may also take as an example school service. Schools that put service requirements are imposing societal forces upon the students so that they may do service. The students are obligated to the service hours in order to graduate or win scholarships. Already, the school is dangling a carrot before the students, a reward for service, or if not a reward, a threat lest they neglect their service. Rewards soil the concept of service, and by doing such the school does not require their students to do service at all. What the school is demanding of the students is slave labor, since the majority of the students are not going to be doing it on account of kindness. The implications of this is that the students' service is neither continual nor selfless. As soon as their service projects end, many of them will quit their service locations and cease the activities having been required. The student has gotten hold of the carrot (the scholarship or diploma) and no longer has a reason to continue running. Teasing students into service with graduation and scholarships in no way encourages selflessness in service; the students have a goal other than service itself. Reflections will not solve this problem, either. I know of one school in particular that requires service and reflections afterward. Most of the students have gained nothing from their "service," and hastily fill out the forms with exactly what the teachers want to hear. Reflection essays are effectively another obstacle in the way of a diploma or scholarship: nothing more. There is nothing that can be done after the service project to make these students comprehend not only that service is needed, but that they are directly responsible throughout their lives for meeting service. Selflessness and continuity are usually instilled from early childhood by the parents, and their growth is also greatly hindered or augmented by the children's living situations. If parents who are apathetic to service have children and do not expose them to the idea, then it is unlikely that service will come naturally to the children. Likewise, if the children are born into a poor family, service is also unlikely, since their background is filled with feelings of hopelessness, or perhaps they think that poverty is the social norm, or that their emotions are tied with contempt for the more affluent. Therefore, the most effective way to inculcate the need for service in a child is in early age, combatting the negative forces or supplementing the positive. The knowledge they must gain is the reason for service and their connection to it. If one does not understand the nature of service, how can one put it to action? And if one does not feel the need for service, what reason does one have to do it?

I am flattered that you have taken the time to attempt an analysis of my argument; however, you have distorted with semantics my premises, hence there is an apparent error in logic. Most of this comes from your idea that I have said "Since humans possess the ability to do wrong, therefore to say that they are good is incorrect." Instead, I look at the ideology "Sin is the human tendency to do wrong; humans have such a tendency," where humans cannot be essentially good since this premise clearly states that makind is wont to do evil. I myself am not of this opinion, since makind is inclined to neither good nor evil in themselves. In your logical statements relating to x, a, and b, a and b are not adequate terms to describe x. If we were to assign a to a static positive number, representing absolute good, and b to a static negative number, representing absolute evil (they can be assigned to constants since both good and evil in my statements are absolutes), what happens when x is equal to a number between them? Then neither of the terms can describe x; we can only say that one term is "closer" to x than the other. This situation of "closeness" is relatable to motive, where intrinsically an act can be described as either good or evil but the intentions may be the opposite. Therefore, to get the most accurate evaluation of a deed, the intentions have to be considered. Humans are animals, beasts, parts of nature; from a struggling chaos where only the strong survive has mankind arisen---if such a word must be used. For mankind's own benefit, it has been equipped with survival instinct which is inherent and inseperable from human psyche, whereas the survival instinct is concerned with survival of the self. Bringing back the idea that acts must be judged upon intention, we see that all acts are essentially the same in that respect, since all deeds are performed ultimately for oneself. You ask on what basis goodness is evaluated, but you must see that goodness can be evaluated no more than a child's belief in the boogeyman. The best one can do is evaluate deeds based on effect and implications. For example, burglary is inconvenient, because the resources of the victim have been taken away, and the victim is at a loss. The deed has been judged according to the plight of the victim. In an attempt to evaluate it according to the burglar, all we can say is "He plundered the house for his own benefit," which is really no different than saying "I donated money to UNICEF, releiving my guilt of personal global responsibility for my own benefit." The only difference between these two events is that the former is inconvenient, but the latter is philanthropic; neither are good or evil.

The fact that selfishness pervades the subconscious makes it inseparable from behavior; in order to control behavior, one has to make conscious effort for change, and obviously no one can affect their unconscious selves consciously. Selfishness is an integral part of human nature and cannot be removed thence, since it is instinct. When selfishness as you say, affects other people in a negative way, self-interest has become unbridled from the depths of the mind and runs rampant in the conscious decision-making processes. However, society implants systems of mediation into the mind, e.g. morals, in such a way that complete egoism is rarely seen on the outside. In addition, egoism simply pertains to self-satisfaction, which is exclusively betterment of the self rather than the maltreatment of everyone else. When self-interest intersects with common good, then everyone benefits, so selfishness can affect others both positively and negatively, according to whatever consequences result from the mind's choosing for its own advantage.