Kabowd Posted April 17, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 17, 2006 The problem is it's a circular assumption. It lacks justification and they must inevitably rely on Sartre's applying the "athiestic leap of faith" which is absurd because it lacks logic and rational thinking. Are you sure? All it does is assume that what is in ones rational self interest is right. That is the only thing it has no justification on, because you can not realy justify anything at that point. And I am only vaugly (and I mean vaugly) aware of who Sartre was. Care to share? I'm sure I can't answer this nearly as thoroughly as AK can, but I'll try. Jean-Paul Sartre is the French existentialist who's concept was that the finite point is absurd if it doesn't have an infinite reference point. In other words, There must be an absolute in order for there to be morals because without the infinite, there is no final judge between what one individual says/believes versus another. But at the same time, he held that a person could "authenticate" himself by some act of will. You could do something good or evil and either act would authenticate your existence (since, according to him, reason is not involved). The problem for Sartre is that he couldn't live his belief consistently. He, himself, signed a Manifesto declaring the Algerian War as a dirty war - he used reason and made a judgment call, thus destorying his own position. This is why it's circular and self-defeating. Philosphers who argued that what is in one's self interest is right would be more along the lines of Rousseau or Sade. If I got any of this mixed up I'm sure AK will correct me..lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted April 17, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 17, 2006 Are you sure? All it does is assume that what is in ones rational self interest is right. That is the only thing it has no justification on, because you can not realy justify anything at that point. And I am only vaugly (and I mean vaugly) aware of who Sartre was. Care to share? Right, it assumes self-interest is right as a bases for moral absolutes, but this is a moral based on the autonomous self which, in the end, fails. Even Kant realized this. The reason being is that our self-interest is going to be different. It leads to an extreme form of self-pragmatism where we can justify almost anything. For instance, if I am applying for a job and my competition is more qualified than me, my self-interest is eradicating my competition. Therefore, I am justified in killing them because I have served my self-interest. This is why absolute autonomy does not work. It still leads to moral relativisim. As for Sartre, he believes that the human essence is inherently nothing more than a choice. There is nothing that pre-sets us to an essence, we make our essence for ourselves. This, as shown above, leads to moral relativism. In the end Sartre could not follow his own belief when he wrote a critique on certain plays saying they destroyed the mind of art....which in turn ascribed a universal essence to art, discrediting his entire theory (as he could not live it). Tess is also correct in what she has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrrylia Posted April 17, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 37 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 17, 2006 You have some problem with confessing Jesus as your Lord and Savior? No, but I do have some problem with the "Christians VS Everybody else" mentality that boards like this tend to have. I thus figured it would be best to just not share my religion at all, to keep things more open. Buuut, no. Did not work. I am a Christian, but now I am a "non-believer." Which means that I can not post in the places that were the sole purpose of my signing up on this forum. You know...current events. Soooo, this will be my last post here. You are doing a much better job explaining atheism than Christianity. A point of veiw which is so simple, is not hard to show. I am not "explaining" anything. What is there to explain? Right, it assumes self-interest is right as a bases for moral absolutes, but this is a moral based on the autonomous self which, in the end, fails. Even Kant realized this. The reason being is that our self-interest is going to be different. It leads to an extreme form of self-pragmatism where we can justify almost anything. For instance, if I am applying for a job and my competition is more qualified than me, my self-interest is eradicating my competition. Therefore, I am justified in killing them because I have served my self-interest. This is why absolute autonomy does not work. It still leads to moral relativisim. Well: 1 - how does the self fail? If that is all there is to us, then why would it fail 2 - Rational self interest is different than just plain old self interest. Killing for something like a job is not rational. As for Sartre, he believes that the human essence is inherently nothing more than a choice. There is nothing that pre-sets us to an essence, we make our essence for ourselves. This, as shown above, leads to moral relativism. In the end Sartre could not follow his own belief when he wrote a critique on certain plays saying they destroyed the mind of art....which in turn ascribed a universal essence to art, discrediting his entire theory (as he could not live it). Tess is also correct in what she has said. Well he sounds dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted April 17, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted April 17, 2006 No, but I do have some problem with the "Christians VS Everybody else" mentality that boards like this tend to have. I thus figured it would be best to just not share my religion at all, to keep things more open. Buuut, no. Did not work. I am a Christian, but now I am a "non-believer." Which means that I can not post in the places that were the sole purpose of my signing up on this forum. You know...current events. Soooo, this will be my last post here. I think that you should have reasonably expected that folks here would ask you about what you believe - this being a Christian forum and all. And your impression that Worthy members have an "us verses them" mentality is probably due to the fact that most of us here are Christians. On a board that is predominantly composed of atheists, you might also get the same kind of impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted April 18, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2006 2 - Rational self interest is different than just plain old self interest. Killing for something like a job is not rational. Why is it not rational? Again, you make a circular assumption. Well he sounds dumb. He was a contemporary of Foucault and Baudrillard...are you asserting they are "dumb" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted May 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 2, 2006 Hello all, I have been actively reading this board for about 3 days and finally felt a need to jump in. I'm a non-believer but it appears you guys don't gang up on us to much. Sorry, it's a common problem on both ends, something about built-in biases or something. lol I wanted to respond to Fiosh's original post. Fiosh, I can totally see that if you world consisted of all the things you mentioned like Original Sin, Heaven, Hell, God and all of that that it would be very logical for you to want to spread that on. The problem with approaching an Atheist like myself is that we have a different form of logic to serve. Yes, I said serve. We don't include those things which we can't sense. We ussually don't believe things and if you go as far as me, you don't even use the word believe anymore. So hopefully you can see that I would have to "imagine" it in the first place. Let me ask you a question. Did you imagine it before you started believing it? Thank you Hi Daniel, I was surprised to see this thread re-surface. Welcome to WB! In answer to your question... Heaven and hell I must imagine, I've never been there. God I have experienced in my soul since I can remember. If I might challenge something you said---" we have a different form of logic to serve. Yes, I said serve. We don't include those things which we can't sense. We ussually don't believe things..." You actually do "believe" lots of stuff. You believe whatever your senses convey to your mind. I propose that you have no idea whether you are receiving accurate data, as the senses have been proven to be unreliable. Conversely, I know God thru my spirit. As my consciousness resides in my spirit, I do not need to rely on faulty senses for data. I receive my data directly from God to my consciousness. So, in reality, you have more faith than I do. Peace, Fiosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2006 Hello all, I have been actively reading this board for about 3 days and finally felt a need to jump in. I'm a non-believer but it appears you guys don't gang up on us to much. Sorry, it's a common problem on both ends, something about built-in biases or something. lol I wanted to respond to Fiosh's original post. Fiosh, I can totally see that if you world consisted of all the things you mentioned like Original Sin, Heaven, Hell, God and all of that that it would be very logical for you to want to spread that on. The problem with approaching an Atheist like myself is that we have a different form of logic to serve. Yes, I said serve. We don't include those things which we can't sense. We ussually don't believe things and if you go as far as me, you don't even use the word believe anymore. So hopefully you can see that I would have to "imagine" it in the first place. Let me ask you a question. Did you imagine it before you started believing it? Thank you Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this as well: It almost seems like you are taking an a priori approach to this; that we had to imagine something before we believed it...in other words there had to be a rationalistic thought process leading to this so that when we did experience it, we already knew it existed. It's almost like you're making an appeal to Kant's transcendental aesthetic. At the same time it seems different in that you seem to have added a post-modern twist onto Kant's transcendental epistimology. Likewise, it seems you are also relying solely on a posteriori as a validation of what you believe. Correct me if I am misrepresenting anything...I don't want to try to answer any of what you asked until I'm sure where you're sitting in your worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2006 Well I'm confused. You do or don't rely on your senses? If you do, I think it's actually hard to find a philosopher out there that justifies such a standard. Kierkegaard, who might be closest to your belief, even taught that there are absolutes which we must abide by. Even Baudrillard, an extreme post-modernist, teaches there are some forms of absolute knowledge, things we can know for certain. It seems as if you have limited your epistimology to a sensory epistimology, which honestly, is new to me. I don't believe I've actually faced something like that because our senses are always flawed and always subjective to the enviroment. For instance, right now I sense that murder is wrong, therefore I do not kill. Yet, what occurs if I need a job but a more qualified person is going to get that job? In this case, I sense that for my survival and living conditions as a human being, killing this human would be beneficial. Thus my senses change to what I want and what suits my best needs (the autonomy of self works here). When it comes to ethics, are you simply accepting a consequentalist (pragmatic) ethical view? Do you buy into Kant's deontology, Bentham's utilitarianism...basically....what is your view of universal ethics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thomas I believe Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 we are genetic code(DNA) lived out with the illusion of freewill. Who made the DNA (the code) as you call it ? I know the answer ! Oh and one more thing we are not an illusion. We did'nt get her by accident. We are not a possibility in reality. Every single human was created by God. We are real ! Some would say our parents created us . God allowed them to be part of the process.. And we surely did'nt evolve ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted May 3, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 3, 2006 I'm not familiar with "faulty senses." Can you give me proof of this? Illusions maybe? If you heard a gas leak in the house, would you run? How can you trust that you spirit isn't faulty? I appreciate your quick response. color-blindness, mirages, auditory hallucinations, phantom pain, etc. How do you know you are not just a brain in a jar hooked to electrodes in some science experiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts