RE: Predetermined and programed... JUST FOR YOU!
I just caught this thread..
If you haven't figured it out yet, there is no real answer to this question, because the question you are asking can't relate to anyone else. It's very subjective, but let's give it a go anyways.
I'm going to help you figure this one out by presenting to you what others have thought on it..
If you aren't familiar with him, Descartes was mad that well, all these people were walking around saying God did not exist. So one day he decided to work on a way to prove God did exist. He mulled it over and came up with the idea that he can't prove anything really exists but himself. You know the, I think, therefore I am line. That was his conclusion.
What this meant was not even his physical form was real. For all he knew he could be tucked away in some dungeon, brain in a jar with electroids sticking out telling him he had hands, but that was fine to him, because at least he knew he was real. If you're having trouble grasping this, think of the Matrix.
This idea, however, brings up a lot of problems, especially when interacting with other human beings. They could be real, they could not be, but you need to make the decision on what to accept as real before you begin to switch it up to get away with murder. because it is either one or the other, it can't be both.
But let's say you are the only real thing in your universe. Well, how are you being programmed into thinking up these other people? You can't create something from nothing, right, so either a. They are there and interacting with you or b. something put these ideas in your mind.
Descartes decided that he still can't prove that A can be true, since being a "scientist", his cornerstone of logic being the only thing I know to be true is my mind, it really throws everything else into question no matter how many times someone says to you "no retard, i'm real" .. So we're stuck with B, and he decides well B must mean then God has to exist, since I believe in God and something had to give me this idea of God.
Anyways.. let's discard the second half of what Descartes thought and keep the first half, but he still brings up a very good point.
If you are the only real thing in your universe, where the hell are you getting all these ideas? If we rewind to where Descartes got his ideas from, we end up with Plato and his idea of The Form.
Plato thought this same question over, too. "Where the hell are my ideas coming from?", and concluded there must be this thing called a Form.. which dictates that there is this idea, somewhere, not on this earth, let's say of a computer. This would be then, the Form of the computer, and that Form is perfect. The perfect computer lies beyond us, but the idea is passed down into human minds, which creates a computer, and there you have your computer.
That meant the ideas you got came from the Gods, which Descartes liked, so he used it with his ideas..
What all this is boiling down to is where you draw the line with another person. If you aren't on the assumption that well, if I am the only thing that I know exists, then this person does not exist.. However, if they are a person too, then they only can prove they exist, so you can see where this will head to really fast, and you'll end up in a quagmire simply because beyond yourself it's just not possible to prove anything exists.
So let's switch it up and just assume that other people do in fact exist. This means a lot of new possibilities, such as where you now get your ideas.
Let me put it this way.. If you decide other people do exist, then you can get your ideas from them, just like you are now, which then solves the riddle of where your thoughts are coming from.
A key point of existantialism is that you are born blank, your mind is clean, no ideas yet. As soon as you are born you are bombarded with media ads, people teaching you how to think, what to eat, how to dress, so on and so forth.
Another key idea built upon this framework is that once you learn language, you cease to be you and end up a product of the society you came from.
Realize, any of these possibilities suggest it is ok to kill someone, however that will never hold up in court simply because it is against the law.
Ok.. here's a better explanation.
by saying "but if i think they are holograms it is ok then, right?" you are acknowledging this law against murder exists, therefore whether or not they are holograms doesn't matter. If you murder a hologram then you still broke the law, only because you are using these holograms as the basis for you definition of someone else. get it?
I hope i didn't confuse you with my response. It's a loaded question, and any short answer simply won't do..
I just caught this thread..
If you haven't figured it out yet, there is no real answer to this question, because the question you are asking can't relate to anyone else. It's very subjective, but let's give it a go anyways.
I'm going to help you figure this one out by presenting to you what others have thought on it..
If you aren't familiar with him, Descartes was mad that well, all these people were walking around saying God did not exist. So one day he decided to work on a way to prove God did exist. He mulled it over and came up with the idea that he can't prove anything really exists but himself. You know the, I think, therefore I am line. That was his conclusion.
What this meant was not even his physical form was real. For all he knew he could be tucked away in some dungeon, brain in a jar with electroids sticking out telling him he had hands, but that was fine to him, because at least he knew he was real. If you're having trouble grasping this, think of the Matrix.
This idea, however, brings up a lot of problems, especially when interacting with other human beings. They could be real, they could not be, but you need to make the decision on what to accept as real before you begin to switch it up to get away with murder. because it is either one or the other, it can't be both.
But let's say you are the only real thing in your universe. Well, how are you being programmed into thinking up these other people? You can't create something from nothing, right, so either a. They are there and interacting with you or b. something put these ideas in your mind.
Descartes decided that he still can't prove that A can be true, since being a "scientist", his cornerstone of logic being the only thing I know to be true is my mind, it really throws everything else into question no matter how many times someone says to you "no retard, i'm real" .. So we're stuck with B, and he decides well B must mean then God has to exist, since I believe in God and something had to give me this idea of God.
Anyways.. let's discard the second half of what Descartes thought and keep the first half, but he still brings up a very good point.
If you are the only real thing in your universe, where the hell are you getting all these ideas? If we rewind to where Descartes got his ideas from, we end up with Plato and his idea of The Form.
Plato thought this same question over, too. "Where the hell are my ideas coming from?", and concluded there must be this thing called a Form.. which dictates that there is this idea, somewhere, not on this earth, let's say of a computer. This would be then, the Form of the computer, and that Form is perfect. The perfect computer lies beyond us, but the idea is passed down into human minds, which creates a computer, and there you have your computer.
That meant the ideas you got came from the Gods, which Descartes liked, so he used it with his ideas..
What all this is boiling down to is where you draw the line with another person. If you aren't on the assumption that well, if I am the only thing that I know exists, then this person does not exist.. However, if they are a person too, then they only can prove they exist, so you can see where this will head to really fast, and you'll end up in a quagmire simply because beyond yourself it's just not possible to prove anything exists.
So let's switch it up and just assume that other people do in fact exist. This means a lot of new possibilities, such as where you now get your ideas.
Let me put it this way.. If you decide other people do exist, then you can get your ideas from them, just like you are now, which then solves the riddle of where your thoughts are coming from.
A key point of existantialism is that you are born blank, your mind is clean, no ideas yet. As soon as you are born you are bombarded with media ads, people teaching you how to think, what to eat, how to dress, so on and so forth.
Another key idea built upon this framework is that once you learn language, you cease to be you and end up a product of the society you came from.
Realize, any of these possibilities suggest it is ok to kill someone, however that will never hold up in court simply because it is against the law.
Ok.. here's a better explanation.
by saying "but if i think they are holograms it is ok then, right?" you are acknowledging this law against murder exists, therefore whether or not they are holograms doesn't matter. If you murder a hologram then you still broke the law, only because you are using these holograms as the basis for you definition of someone else. get it?
I hope i didn't confuse you with my response. It's a loaded question, and any short answer simply won't do..
Comment