Philosophical Questions

No feeling in your hands and you're a writer? That is very impressive. May I ask how you lost the feeling? I'm studying neuroscience right now so it's all interesting.

 

What plants don't have rights. They live don't they. And of course this isn't a debate we're just trying to understand the full range of possible character motivation.

 

Plants are not sentient beings so they aren't a part of this discussion of the full range of possible character motivation.

 

I don't think it's because we assign moral worth to other humans. I believe it's because society tells us it's wrong to do so, and has for centuries so that we have grown a universal paradigm that it is wrong. And out of curiosity, does that mean you believe soldiers in the war are acting immorally when they kill an enemy? I don't see it as even remotely close to being irrelevant.

I wouldn't say this is debating at all, just discussion. It's when you start repeatedly calling a person a hypocrite that it could become an argument

 

Plants are also not sentient. They are incapable of thinking "Oh, that person let me die."

I'm going to have a agree somewhat with Helga's opinion. Most people give humans more moral rights than animals. If I distributed cow meat to a random array of people, many of them might take it. If I distributed human meat, no one would (and I'd be put in jail). Additionally, even in a soldier's case, many of them feel guilty after the slaughter of an enemy soldier, and such cases often lead to post-traumatic stress.

I'm thinking that debate is nearly impossible to avoid if this thread continues the way it is. I humbly suggest we only ask philosophically related questions, and reply only with self opinions.

 

Predators eat meat. Let's not disappoint mother nature.
"Feed Me Seymour" cried the Venus fly trap that stood hidden in the back room of Mushnik's Skid Row Florists.("Little Shop of Horrors the Musical")
Now that's character development.

 

I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I am calling the potential actions of a fictional character hypocritical. I believe that when two people (let's say they are in a war) decide that they wish to enter mortal combat with the hope and understanding that there will be blood, that all morality is pushed aside. I believe it is morally wrong to kill someone who does not consent to it.

As far as your first premise, I don't know if I can debate that. If you are correct, then assigning moral worth simply fits into your universal paradigm. Your opinion seems strangely similar to the one I arrived at during an LSD trip. I definitely agree with your statement. When I discuss the potential full range of character motivation, I generally go by the common type of philosophical reasoning that most people agree with (doubt that made sense).

 

A fellow tripper eh! Always nice to stumble upon someone who enjoys the same certain "12 hour" pass time as I occasionally do

Cheddar is a wise man so let's get some different questions going!

This leads to a more law related question as opposed to philosophy, but the two are closely connected.

Should drugs be legalized? Does it take away a person's right to free will?

Or: right now in my class we are talking about human nature and whether or not a human nature actually exists and what human nature is.

Personally I don't believe in any of that jazz per say. I believe in a collective unconscious as a supreme being in which we are all apart of. My own personalized theory of the original theory is a bit whacko and would take too long to explain at the moment though.

What do you guys think?

 

Do you mean are just products of a universe trying to understand itself or grow?

 

The human brain has evolved with receptors for nicotine and THC (and I'm sure many more). Before society's inception, humans were consuming many different drugs. I don't see how morality can even be associated with drug use. It's very sad that this is the case.

I don't believe in that collective unconscious because I'm studying neuroscience and there's no room for that with all the facts around it. Who knows.

Better question is does free will exist at all? I don't think it does. The laws of physics as well as the nature of the brain (everything is determined from an uncontrollable reaction to impossible to predict stimuli) make impossible to allow for true free will. Human nature? Doesn't exist. If it does, then it's just a common set of behavior as a result to common stimuli.

 

Every set of forces have balance points where the smallest influence will be the deciding factor even something as small as a human thought.
Yes we are a complex set of forces driven by biological and environmental influences but there are times that those forces will be balanced against each other and a choice can be made. When young you have more of those times of choice but they are reduced as we get older and set in our ways. They however never disappear entirely.

 

Yes! That is one of the main principles of the theory I believe in.

Neuroscience? That's cool, do you enjoy it?

And well in the theory that I have kind of concocted (I don't know if someone else has come up with it yet, nor do I one hundred percent believe in it) things like neuroscience, biology and basically everything else (including factories, farms and so on) only exist as rationalization so the collective consciousness as whole can perceive the world that surrounds us without driving ourselves mad. So technically, for me, human nature does exist, but only because it is a collection of paridgms, customs and traditions that are shared among the collective unconscious as a whole. Jeez, I can not explain it well

That's why I don't think it ultimately matters if I die, or somebody else dies. Because I'm living through you, you're living through me and everybody is living through each other. So if I die, I'm technically still living because the collective unconscious lives.

Each and every one of us is the universe.

 

In my own opinion, certain drugs should remain illegal. Drugs tend to mess with the brain, which can quickly lead to actions which endanger their lives (sometimes other lives as well).

Now this is one of the questions that have been on the philosophy table for hundreds of years. I think the notion of soft-determinism appeals to me the most. Everything is determined by a previous event, but one is able to choose freely between some options caused by the event, assuming they are not restricted in some way.

 

I'm taking Behavioral Neuroscience because it's a requirement in Psychology and I am really enjoying it. It has reinforced a number of realizations given to me during my 4-12 hour excursions. It has really been opening my mind. Nope, you explained it pretty well. When do you feel the presence of that collective consciousness?

Those forces are balanced against each other as a result of exposure to different stimuli, past or present. It still isn't free will, in the opinion of the character that I am attempting to develop. What does your character potentially think in regards to this hypothetical question?

 

It's presence is felt when such things as coincidence, luck, chance and deja vu are involved.

Here's an example (I forget the specifics, sorry but if you search it up, you could probably find it): I believe it was in the eighteenth century, possibly the nineteenth where two men on opposite sides of the world both set out on a mission to discover some new profound discovery (each obviously unknowing of the other). After years of research and finally coming to a conclusion they published it. Eventually they found out that they had discovered the whatever it was, practically at the same time and also had the exact same research.

 

This is a neat concept. But how do you define the overwhelming amounts of events in which this does not happen?

 

Discussions of recreational drug use are specifically prohibited on this site.