I am currently doing a survey for my Theory of Knowledge class. I am to ask complete strangers a few questions, and thus I thought it would be interesting to post them here. These results will be compared with the rest of my class on Monday, October 10th. Anyone is welcome to answer, providing you follow a few guidelines:
Your answers should be well thought-out and written in proper English. I don't want any one-word crap or one-sentence-that-goes-on-for-miles answers.
Please don't write an essay answer for each question. One paragraph maximum.
Do not, under any circumstances, harass one another for their answers. I would rather not have to have the thread locked, since that would only hurt myself. You are free to discuss one another's opinions, but do not insult or harass.
You must answer all of the questions.
Your anonymity is guaranteed when I turn these results in. No names will be used, on-line aliases or real names.
That having been said, if you are interested in answering these questions, here they are:
1. What should you do to live a happy life?
2. What does justice mean?
3. Who should decide what is right and wrong? Why? Can they be mistaken?
4. What is a successful life?
5. What is the meaning of life? Is it important to know?
Thank you for your time!
Last edited by Spongy on Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1. I'd be happy to do what I'd love to do.
2. Justice means that people treat others fairly.
3. Each person comes up with their own definition of right and wrong, based in what they've been taught and what their experiences are. Everyone's mistaken at some point, though.
4. Doing what you love to do.
5. I do not know what the meaning of life is. It may be important to not know, because it could shatter a person's beliefs.
I'm working on a werewolf novel, while liking to stay up late at night and going to college. I'm going to be sleep-deprived when this is all said and done.
Anthony Brownrigg, I hope you have the best of luck with Freeborn. RedEye, I also wish you the best of luck with Wulfen Blood. And for a bit of luck for both of you...
Ahh, intellectualism. I love delving into the meaning of ideas, and finding the holes in popular thought. Here goes:
1. To live a happy life is to live in the moment. The immediate, the here and now, is the simplest of all existences that can be understood and felt, and therefore is the easiest to improve and enjoy. Feeling down? Smile a bit, have a glass of orange juice, forget about the test you just failed. If your life is going in a bad direction, stop worrying about where you're going and take a look at where you are. If you made a mistake in the past and you feel bad about it, do something good right now and feel great about that! A good way to summarize the idea of living in the here and now is this simple rhyme:
Yesterday is history, and tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
2. Justice is subjective. It describes how the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' apply to you, and how you feel about them. True justice, wrongs being righted, dues being paid, is different between people, because people ahve different definitions of 'right' and 'wrong'. Look at any major decision that has ever been made concerning a popular social issue. Did absolutely everyone agree? No, of course not. Why? Because they all have different opinions of justice. Justice for the judge is not justice for O.J. Simpson, it's unlawful imprisonment. Justice for a fox, having earned his dinner after a hard day's work hunting, is not justice to the rabbit he caught, it's murder. Justice, like 'right' and 'wrong', is a matter of perspective.
3. Who decides what is right and wrong? Depends on who the decision affects. If the decision affect you, you are the judge. If the decision affects America as a whole, then America is the judge; we vote on it. Note that this is an idealist philosophy, and the difference between judge and affected is often quite wide. Take note of American economic policy. The judges are several prominent figures in our government, who, while they are obligated to follow certain lines when making their decision, ultimately have authority over the way that America throws around its money. the judged, on the other hand, is the entire planet; countries all over the world have hands in our economy, and if we do well, so do they. conversely, if we do poorly, we drag them down too.
In practical terms, the difference between right and wrong is decided by those who can enforce this perspective the most. If your little brother tells you that stealing his cookie is wrong, there's not much he can do to stop you. If, on the other hand, your brother were replaced by a heavily-set policeman, his definition of 'wrong' might just take precedence over yours.
4. A successful life is defined by the man who lives it. Many men who made millions and influenced the world for centuries to come ultimately were consumed by their own demons and ended their lives in depression and despair. An example of this would be Vincent Van Gogh, one of the most famous impressionist painters in history, whose best known paintings were all produced during the last two years of his life leading up to his suicide in 1890. He produced these paintings while fighting mental illness and dealing with many bouts of depression. Van Gogh would no doubt look upon himself with disdain and despair, but those who view his paintings look at them as some of the best ever.
Conversely, there are those who spend their entire lives in the negative view of the world, viewed as scoundrels, lawbreakers and otherwise unlikeable folk in the eyes of the world yet completely at peace with who they are and what they do, and are happy for it. Perhaps a good example here is the villain from the Cohen brothers film No Country for Old Men, Anton Chigurh. Chigurh is a psychopath, a cold-hearted killer, but believes he is the only sane person around, and that he has a perfect understanding of the universe that no one else can comprehend. He kills people without remorse or pity, and throughout every terrible thing that ha makes happen or happens to him, he remains a placid individual with a wry smile on his face. This is a man who is a murdering bastard, and doesn't care in the slightest.
Life is what you make of it, and as such, your life is a good one if you think so. The only person who can tell you that you are truly satisfied with your existence is yourself.
5. From a purely physical and biological standpoint, the meaning of life is to live, eat, sleep, and propagate (emphasis on the last one if you're male, wink wink). From the more philosophical standpoint that most humans take, the answer is a lot more complicated. In truth, the meaning of life is whatever you want it to be. Look at it this way: your life is a series of conscious decisions you make for various reasons, and the meaning of it can be considered the ultimate goal of these decisions, or the reason for making them. If you make the choices that make you happy, then the meaning of your life is happiness. If you make your choices out of nationalistic pride, the meaning of life is to serve your country. For me, I try to learn as much as I can about the world, so the meaning of my life is knowledge.
Was that too wordy for you? Feel free to contradict me; I love input on philosophical subjects.
What can create a new system, or destroy an old one? What can change the lives of everyone who touches it? What can strengthen the whole world, or shake it to its very roots? What can create whole nations, and change the course of history?
Holy wow! The only one that I'd like to argue with is your answer to number three. Personally, I feel that no one can decide what is right and wrong, since that is also subjective. Aspects of right and wrong vary by culture, religion, social aspects, etc.
For example; In Hitler's view, it was "right" to massacre a bunch of people. To the rest of the world, this was "wrong".
It is impossible for any one person or group to decide what is right and wrong because of the fact stated above. Different cultures, religions, etc, have different views.
Another example is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Some argue that it is full of western ideals. And if you look at the main countries that wrote it, it will be countries who agree with those ideals. Some of these so-called "Rights" may be seen as completely mad by someone else. For example, take Article 17 Part One. It states that everyone has the right to own property alone. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in some parts of the world, women still have very little rights, and cannot own property. Are these countries therefore denying them what the UN has proclaimed a human right? That government is "wrong" because the UN says that their ways are "right". The reverse also applies. That government thinks that they are "right" because their way of life says so. I'm not saying I support that way of life.
There are just too many different ways of life in the world currently for any one person or group to proclaim what is right and wrong. Rather, it is the culture and lifestyle itself that decides these things.
spongypants23 wrote:
1. What should you do to live a happy life?
Do what you enjoy. Though in moderation, perhaps, since going overboard could result in not being able to do that anymore - for whatever reason - and that would (obviously) be unfortunate.
2. What does justice mean?
That the right thing is done.
3. Who should decide what is right and wrong? Why? Can they be mistaken?
We're all human. Of course we can be mistaken. But I think everyone, together, can decide what, as a whole, is right and what is wrong. Things are, to a degree, subjective in that there are ways to justify some things ("He was trying to kill me! I was only defending myself!") but generally it's not too hard to pick out what is really wrong or right - if something causes harm it's not likely to be very good, y'know?
4. What is a successful life?
One that was enjoyed. That is true success.
5. What is the meaning of life? Is it important to know?
Life is a lot like one of those games where you can screw around and do anything, where there is no goal.
Which is to say, the goal of life is what you make it.
spongypants23 wrote:...Hitler's view....
Holy cow.
Three posts in and Godwin's Law has already been enacted.
I figured this thread might've lasted longer before hitting that.
Theory of knowledge as in epistomology? Those sound more like the philosophy of happiness, a course I am considering doing.
1. To indulge. Some may be universals, like food or sex, some may be personal, but seek autonomy, respect that of others, and indulge.
2. The advantage of the stronger. People are born with natural variations of many kinds and this makes achieving equality, vengeance or fairness chaotic and subjective.
3. Nobody. An individual is the only person who should decide their actions on a number of factors such as pragmatism and consequence but these actions do not intrinsically contain 'right' and 'wrong' and more than they can contain 'good' or 'evil'. I am an ethical anti-realist. No facts about the world, A priori or A posteriori tell us anything about what is right, particularly if you take this to be linked somehow to what is moral. Neither have an objective source, and any subjective interpretation is simply admitting they do not exist. The universe is not built that way and thus an advisable action is only ever context sensitive. As you can imagine I do not like Kant.
4. A trick question in my eyes. My knee-jerk response to that is to achieve happiness (as I described it), progress (often something that improves overall happiness) or both. But then asked myself 'what is it about these things that implies "success"?'. Successfulness is a judgement based on a benchmark that simply does not exist and cannot be made. To judge your own success is about as valid as winning a game where everyone plays with different rules. Nevertheless to think you are succesful sometimes is an unavoidable and enjoyable phantasm.
5. There is no intrinsic meaning to life, let alone a purpose. I am one of those hardline nihilists who would say that even if god exists this would not imply meaning to life nor purpose. The goals, rewards and punishments of a deity are arbitrary human experiences. They would serve as incentives to actions, but not a purpose. This is the kind of thing I must refrain from writing pages about, spelling out every instance where purpose becomes convoluted with other concepts. And meaning? Such a question is so common as every answer can be disputed. It is a strange, somehow postmodern question, like, 'what is the meaning of wood?' or 'what is the meaning of 30 000?'. It has a function, a definition, we know what it is and most of the time we can recognize it. But is it just a thing, a shaped abyss lit by consciousness. The source and the destination of our minds are merely properties of something that is ambivelant to anything that could exist. Pardon me though, as I know I have explained this better elsewhere and it's a bit convoluted.
Real humanity presents a mixture of all that is most sublime and beautiful with all that is vilest and most monstrous in the world - Mikhail Bakunin, God and The State
Nothing in life is certain except negative patient care outcomes and revenue enhancement - William Lutz
Actually, this is a thread where invoking Nazism makes sense.
Spongy, I'd like to direct you to the 'practical terms' part of my answer.
W'rkncacnter wrote:
In practical terms, the difference between right and wrong is decided by those who can enforce this perspective the most. If your little brother tells you that stealing his cookie is wrong, there's not much he can do to stop you. If, on the other hand, your brother were replaced by a heavily-set policeman, his definition of 'wrong' might just take precedence over yours.
What I mean by this is that while everyone has their own definition of right and wrong, the people with the strength to enforce their definition get to decide what right and wrong are for everyone else.
Take Hitler, as you said. For several years, he was the main man of Europe and had last say in the lives of its inhabitants. He said that genocide was right, and, per his word, it happened. He had the power to force his definition of right and wrong on the people of Europe. If he had won the war, the whole world would still be using a moral system cut from that mold.
Of course, the allies won, and Hitler's ideas were condemned as 'inhuman' and 'evil' (these are in quotes because they are subjective terms and I am speaking objectively). Nowadays, the world tends towards the moral compass used by the allies, because they won the war.
There is a saying: History is written by the victors of its conflicts. This is true. What is also true is that the very concepts of justice and morality are written by the victors.
What can create a new system, or destroy an old one? What can change the lives of everyone who touches it? What can strengthen the whole world, or shake it to its very roots? What can create whole nations, and change the course of history?
What you say makes a lot of sense, and I will agree with you.
I don't have a counter-argument for you. Sorry
I may have misunderstood your answer a little bit... I think you were saying that the decision should be made by whoever the decision affects? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Three posts in and Godwin's Law has already been enacted.
I figured this thread might've lasted longer before hitting that.
Sorry if I offended you. It was simply one of the examples that came to mind while writing it. I can edit it out if you feel that it bothers you.
LOL.
It didn't offend me I just figured the thread would last longer before Godwin's Law was hit.
W'rkncacnter wrote:Actually, this is a thread where invoking Nazism makes sense.
Ah, but; " The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable."
Let's see if I can help out from my admittedly bent view of things:
1: To live a happy life...
Work that is of value and worth to you, so when the day is over you can say "I've accomplished something." We are defined by what we do, so to be happy; we should do that which we value and take pride in accomplishing.
2: What does Justice mean? Ultimately, it means balance; not retribution. Justice is that which brings balance to a situation that is not in balance.
3: Who should decide what is right and what is wrong? Why? Can they be mistaken?
Ultimately, each person determines what is right and wrong for themselves and by extension, society. They do this because they seek a steady reference point in life's chaotic times. They cannot be wrong unless they are also uninformed on how life has changed around them and cling to outmoded standards that no longer work.
4. What is a successful life? One that when over leaves no regrets as you pass onwards.
5.What is the meaning of life. Is it important to know? The meaning of life is to Grow. That which does not grow, dies. Is it important to know life's meaning? No. What is important is to live and to grow; the knowledge will take care of itself.
RedEye: The Wulf and writer who might really be a Kitsune...
spongypants23 wrote:What you say makes a lot of sense, and I will agree with you.
I don't have a counter-argument for you. Sorry
I may have misunderstood your answer a little bit... I think you were saying that the decision should be made by whoever the decision affects? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Alright, let me clarify. My initial answer was a philosophical ideal, or an 'in a perfect world' statement, where cause and effect are equally and directly linked; where those who will be affected by a decision make the decision. In this way no one is ever, as the term goes, left out of the loop.
In reality, this almost never happens, and the ratio between decision makers and those affected is heavily lopsided, hence the more practical answer i gave later.
What can create a new system, or destroy an old one? What can change the lives of everyone who touches it? What can strengthen the whole world, or shake it to its very roots? What can create whole nations, and change the course of history?
A lot of emphasis had been placed on subjectivity and personal generation of morals/ethical guidlines. So are most here subjectivists who take on various derivatives of cultural relativism? Do you take these to be valid?
Real humanity presents a mixture of all that is most sublime and beautiful with all that is vilest and most monstrous in the world - Mikhail Bakunin, God and The State
Nothing in life is certain except negative patient care outcomes and revenue enhancement - William Lutz
The meaning of life is the journey towards finding the meaning of life.
that implies no direction for the journey, and for those who suppose that the meaning of life should dictate action, it implies no action.
Can you imagine a mathamatician trying to replace life in that definition with X? 'X equals...solve for X?'
Real humanity presents a mixture of all that is most sublime and beautiful with all that is vilest and most monstrous in the world - Mikhail Bakunin, God and The State
Nothing in life is certain except negative patient care outcomes and revenue enhancement - William Lutz
Wselfwulf wrote:A lot of emphasis had been placed on subjectivity and personal generation of morals/ethical guidelines. So are most here subjectivists who take on various derivatives of cultural relativism? Do you take these to be valid?
Oooh, good question. I'd be happy to discuss that.
Also, I corrected 'guidlines'.
I think that everyone has their own little lens through which they view the world. Through this lens, some things make sense, others don't, some ideas are smart, and others are stupid. The important thing to realize is that no two lenses of perspective, as I call them, are the same I.E. no one sees the world the exact same way you do.
This means two things: first, it means that it is possible to 'remove your lens' and look at the world from an objective standpoint, where everyone is acting in a certain interest towards a certain goal, and the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are irrelevant. Second, it means that everyone is a subjectivist at one point or another. Our upbringings make us opinionated, but with effort we can ignore those base instincts towards certain ideas and concepts and look at the world the way it really is.
Sure, I think I'm right, but I also like to take into account the fact that you might be too. As Obi-Wan Kenobi put it: You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend upon our own point of view.
What can create a new system, or destroy an old one? What can change the lives of everyone who touches it? What can strengthen the whole world, or shake it to its very roots? What can create whole nations, and change the course of history?
I think that everyone has their own little lens through which they view the world. Through this lens, some things make sense, others don't, some ideas are smart, and others are stupid. The important thing to realize is that no two lenses of perspective, as I call them, are the same I.E. no one sees the world the exact same way you do.
This is the main motivation/insight of the phenomenologists I think, Husserl, Heidegger and so on.
This means two things: first, it means that it is possible to 'remove your lens' and look at the world from an objective standpoint
Merleau-Ponty would disagree with that, and I'd have to say I'm with him on that one at the moment. To become truly objective what kind of view are we taking, precisely? How can we strip away the very thing, I think, that allows us to comprehend the world at all? But, alas, you have some of the other phenomenologists on your side. Husserl, for one, says there is the 'natural attitude' and the 'phenomological attitude'. One thing I will concede is that awareness of our own bias allows us to achieve greater levels of objectivity.
and look at the world the way it really is.
The phenomenologists seem to suggest all that is real, or all that is relevant, is perceived phenomena. And the epistemologists haven't really pinned down ways of proving that something is a particular, objective way. I think this is still problematic to do. Unless by that you meant you were implying a metaphysical, not physical or normative claim?
I ask this question as, I suppose, invoking subjectivity, and saying that the only valid view of something is different from person to person, is the same as saying it does not exist.
Real humanity presents a mixture of all that is most sublime and beautiful with all that is vilest and most monstrous in the world - Mikhail Bakunin, God and The State
Nothing in life is certain except negative patient care outcomes and revenue enhancement - William Lutz
I suppose you are right in the fact that a completely non-partisan, objective observation by a human is inherently impossible. This is probably because our senses inherently place emphasis on certain things we perceive over others (the eye, for example, is attracted to bright colors over dark ones), making us prone to notice some objects and events over others.
However, in social and cultural matters among us humans, where ALL members of the forum share the same kind of basic bias of sensory perception, it is possible (in some cases even easy) to observe the perspective lens of another human (which, after the basic bias, is the only thing separating your perception and theirs), and, with a bit of rational thought, use it yourself to see the world through their eyes. This is a very philosophical and complicated way of saying 'put yourself in their shoes'.
Then, logically, you can realize what parts of your own cultural perception (your lens of perspective) are bias due to your personal experiences, and make observations without taking those into account. This would be what I was talking about; seeing the world for what it really is. In practical terms, this is looking for common observations in two or more disagreeing points of view. Barring the possibility of both points of view being flawed in their observations, these basic agreeing facts are the most easily observable and provable as true. For example: I say the rock is red. You say it's blue. We disagree on the color of the rock, but from an objective standpoint, one thing is clear: there is a rock there.
*clears throat loudly* I'm getting a bit wordy in my explanations...feel free to ask me to clarify.
What can create a new system, or destroy an old one? What can change the lives of everyone who touches it? What can strengthen the whole world, or shake it to its very roots? What can create whole nations, and change the course of history?
1. What should you do to live a happy life?
Do whatever speaks to your heart and keeps you safe and healthy. Not just following someone else's idea of what life or happiness should be. It's different for everybody.
2. What does justice mean?
Justice is making sure those who have unfairly wronged another are given some kind of equal punishment or service. Hopefully so they will learn not to repeat it.
3. Who should decide what is right and wrong? Why? Can they be mistaken?
The concept of right and wrong is highly flawed because different things mean different things to different people and cultures. I believe its up to the individual to decide. However, when it comes to "wrongs" that are agreed upon by most or all (rape, abuse) I think its OK to have some kind of enforcer (like cops). But they cant be given too much power. And it is very easily for someone to be mistaken about right and wrong just because they can be under-informed.
4. What is a successful life?
One that keeps you happy and healthy and provides for you. One you enjoy but not at the cost of yourself or others.
5. What is the meaning of life? Is it important to know?
Is there really a meaning? Or are we just lifeforms surviving on a planet that will go on long after us? Or maybe there is? I think it's good to not know. Its good to ponder it...it makes life worth living. But its not good to get so absorbed by it that you dont actually enjoy yourself.
Anyway, those are my off the top of my head answers. Im sure I could debate them all day. Very thought provoking!
You are the only light there is for yourself my friend
Just a follow-up. I picked three people, and turned in their answers. Names will not be given out, do not ask.
My teacher was very pleased with the answers. I was one of the few people who actually did what we were supposed to, and that was to ask people we didn't know personally. I figured I'd stick the questions here, since I don't really know any of you personally. Good idea, if I say so myself.
Very thought provoking!
