Karma Burn wrote:Humans are animals. That's what it breaks down to. That's all we are and that's all we'll ever be. We all have basic animalistic instincts. We are capable of great deeds of kindness and also great atrosicities, in the name of something or just because. So, what separates us from other animals? What makes us any "better" than a dog or a gorilla? Abstract thought. It's not that it makes us any "better", it makes us different, that's all. We have the ability to understand the world and conceptualize it. That's what makes us different.

That's all and good, but the question is... What defines us? :P
We don't know for sure if we're the only beings to be able to understand and conceptulise. Like, for example, the primate who was shown a scale model of a room, and the experimenter puts a banana in the closet. Then the primate goes into the actual room, and it goes straight to the closet to get the banana. That's understanding the concept, as well.

I doubt there really is any one thing that truly defines humans. Pick any one of our basic "special human qualities", and you'll probably find it in some form in another species. All that makes us special is the way these traits all occur in us simultaneously and the degree to which they have developed.

Although maybe religion is something that hasn't been confirmed for any other species yet. (Oh, wait, I forgot the rabbits. Hail, Frith!)

Does it really matter whether or not there is something that "defines" us? We exist...or maybe we don't. What matters is we've been thrown into a world we didn't ask to be put into and told to get along, some how. Now, we just have to make some semblance of sense out it. It doesn't have to be the entire thing. It just has to be enough to make us think we have control over it.

The questions, as I originally asked them...

There are two arguments here.

1. Right (true) Wrong (false) can anybody be truly right or wrong about something when Correct and incrorrect is itself different for every human being.


2. Right (moral) Wrong (imoral)
If things are how we see them. Who is moral who isn't? Everybody's idea of morality differs. Does actual Morality exsist? Or is it all in our heads?

The answer to the second question, as gleaned from this forum seems to boil down to "Yes. Morality exists just different for everybody."
There were a lot of great arguments, including one that said Morality is just a human creation, but the answer still seems to boil down to perception. Even if we as humans invented morality does it not still exist?

The answer to thie first question seems to not really have turned up because through a serious of arguments we seem to have made the question only more apparent rather then answered.

So, all of you ready for another round, answer me this, is the apparant answer to question 2 correct or not?

And is there a answer to question one?

The second question is fine enough, but the first one is almost paradoxical. You know? Like "I am lying, right now." How can you answer the question that questions whether things can truly be answered?

A lot of debates in philosophy just seem to me like wordier versions of that old gag where you give someone a piece of paper saying on both sides, "How do you keep a moron occupied for hours? (turn over)"

In truth, it almost is. The thing is, the messages are written on every single thing, and we haven't turned over all those messages yet. "What's the nature of the universe? (go to a turtle)" "What's the nature of the universe? (go look at the sky)" "What's the nature of the universe? (look under a daisy petal)" and so on.
Essentially, when you've looked under every single thing in existance, you'll understand the nature of the universe. Obviously, it goes in a loop, but that's because everything is interconnected, which makes looking for an answer as easy as looking at the chair you're sitting on. One thing will lead to another and you learn more. Philosophers, I guess, just keep looking around and try to understand what little they know already, and get a general idea of whatever they want to know about. They start at different starting points, so some will rediscover what another already has, and so forth, and gives the illusion of pointlessness. That statement, there, already has lead me to this question: "What is the point of anything?"
As humans, we want to know more, and philosophy is something that will keep us occupied for a long time.

Karma Burn wrote:I believe in an absolute truth. There is a true sequence of events but humans can never know the the truth because to know this truth is to understand everything.

And if we accept that we can never understand or know everything, then we have to assume that any absolute truth, if it exists, can never be ours...

I've never much believed in the 'absoluteness' of anything, since in both science and nature (and even religion) there appears to be exceptions to every rule. No theory of existence or truth completely encompasses the scope of all that is (or isn't), other than acceptance of the flawed nature of the theory. Which... kind of invalidates the theory in the first place. On a base level, theories seem not to exist to explain the world, so much as to satisfy our apparent dysphoria with all that cannot be defined and understood.

I remember a conversation along similar lines I had once, where the other person was claiming that mathematics is an example of the Absolute, since apparently mathematics can be applied to anything, and therefore exists within nature, and is not just a human concept. This idea is still flawed, though, since a 'unifying theory of existence' via mathematics has still to be found... Many branches of mathematics contradict and conflict with each other anyhow. Sure, the ideas work on a small scale... a bit like believing in Santa Claus for a while when you're a child - it's flawless then - but as far as scaling out to see a 'big picture' goes, all theories fail.

Perhaps the 'big picture' is simply too big for the mind's eye to ever see. I'm not too worried about the Big Picture myself, I'm more interested in just why people are so obssessed with seeing it... as if it's going to change the fundamentals of life and living.

It's true that there are exceptions to every rule. "Truth" as we know it can be streched, but is it possible to exist without an absoluteness of truth? If there is no true sequence of events, then what is there?...

That gives me an interesting idea. I do not think I'll be getting verym uch sleep tonight as I ponder over that question "If there is no absolute truthful sequence of events, what is there?" Anyone think they have an answer.

Perhaps the 'big picture' is simply too big for the mind's eye to ever see. I'm not too worried about the Big Picture myself, I'm more interested in just why people are so obssessed with seeing it... as if it's going to change the fundamentals of life and living.

I, unfortunately (is it unfortunate?), fall under that category.

Karma Burn wrote:It's true that there are exceptions to every rule. "Truth" as we know it can be streched, but is it possible to exist without an absoluteness of truth? If there is no true sequence of events, then what is there?...

Certainly it's possible to exist without an absoluteness of truth, just as it's possible to exist without being able to see all things or hear all things.

Gee, I leave for a few days, and you come to this? :roll:
There are exceptions to every rule? There is no absolute truth?
Well, it's relative. What you perceive as 'rules' are really just human inventions. How can they not be flawed? I believe in true rules in which everything follows, but that is like the bigger picture. Tabris had some things right. We can never understand or know everything, and absolute truth can never be ours. We try to think about how things work on our level, so when other things start happening, it seems like the rules have been breaking.
Take Newton's laws for example. It's fantastic, but when things start travelling at high speeds, his laws go out the window. Why? It didn't work in extreme conditions. Einstein, however, thought beyond and came up with special relativity. This time, it worked. Everything happened as his works said it would.
I believe in absolute truth, but it will always be beyond us. If there are beings working on a high level than us, they would understand some things that we don't, and some things that they, themselves, can't explain because there is always something beyond them.
So, the truth is, there is no absolute truth because we won't get it. There is relative truth, at least, where things seem close to what we expect; but relativity isn't absolution.
Take this analogy: The stars move around our sky. Good. But some seem to move quicker than the others. Alright, one rule broken. Compensate by giving them separate rules. Cool... That's our flaw. The big picture is... we're moving too. And other things move at different rates and in different directions. Then some things will collide or whatever, and they change speeds and direction. And levels will keep going until we can't understand without being certain, and we can't because we can't transcend the model in which we are stuck in.
Relativity gives us uncertainty. Absolution is for God. We can't be certain of his existance.
"Absolution" - It's a double-meaning pun, alright? : P
(P.S. Want an explanation for why we can't be certain? Ask.)

Certainly it's possible to exist without an absoluteness of truth, just as it's possible to exist without being able to see all things or hear all things.

But how do comatose people know they exist? I'm not sure if this discussion has decided that the self-realization of existance is inherant yet...is it?

Karma Burn wrote:

Certainly it's possible to exist without an absoluteness of truth, just as it's possible to exist without being able to see all things or hear all things.

But how do comatose people know they exist? I'm not sure if this discussion has decided that the self-realization of existance is inherant yet...is it?

Well, I presume that comatose people often lack awareness of many things, although some people say that when they were in a coma they had a sense of self in one form or another.

I've always been surprised by the idea that we need to do anything special to work out a proof of our existence. It seems to me the other way around, that we'd have to do something special to prove that we *don't* exist. In other words, the burden of proof should be with those who say we don't exist, not with those who assume we exist.

I wonder where this attitude came from. It might be understandable, say, if we were some form of intelligent life that survived drifting in deep space. With little but vacuum around us, we might get to wondering if those distant lights were just a product of our imagination.

But as physical beings (we get hungry, we've all been sick or injured somehow) living on a planet surrounded by billions of our fellow beings, and all kinds of animals and plants large and small, how'd we ever get the idea into our philosophy to be suspicious of whether we really existed?

The question of existence can be useful in a theoretical sense in cognitive science, art, and literature. But to seriously doubt in *reality* that you exist--you might as well seriously doubt you'll plummet to the earth if you walk over the edge of a cliff.

Carl Horn wrote:But as physical beings (we get hungry, we've all been sick or injured somehow) living on a planet surrounded by billions of our fellow beings, and all kinds of animals and plants large and small, how'd we ever get the idea into our philosophy to be suspicious of whether we really existed?

On that note:

"Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he
has to solve."
-Erich Fromm (1900-1980), in "Man for Himself"

This thread's original topic has all but dissolved into an excuse to make intellectual-sounding, self-gratifying posts. To those who have no idea what they're talking about, please cease. To those who wish to forward the conversation, then by all means, go ahead and ramble.
Maybe I should just stay out of this thread, I'm too much of a rationalist to appreciate "the truth." Do I exist? Yeah, whether I really do or do not doesn't matter. I, and many others, have both interacted with, and percieved, my existence. And now, proof that man has missed the blindingly obvious:

A Philosopher asks Buddha

A philosopher asked Buddha: `Without words, without the wordless, will you you tell me truth?'
The Buddha kept silence.

The philosopher bowed and thanked the Buddha, saying: `With your loving kindness I have cleared away my delusions and entered the true path.'

After the philosopher had gone, Ananda asked the Buddha what he had attained.

The Buddha replied, `A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip.'

That was a Koan, and the purpose of Koan, at its base, is to destroy the logical thought process so as to achieve enlightenment. Yes, I'm pretty sure I posted this for a reason, but everything keeps twisting back onto itself, so let's not go any further.[/self-gratification]

It's nice to feel needed. Even if it is intellectual.

...how'd we ever get the idea into our philosophy to be suspicious of whether we really existed?

Perhaps because death (for the conscious Self) may not exist? Most of us would accept our Self was in a state of non-existence prior to being born, yet know nothing of that state; and if we cannot perceive and know death, can we be sure life is really its opposite?