Philosophia

[Aaroneet]

Originally Posted by Draconysius

Ok, new discussion:
Is it right that a civilian man can face life in jail for killing another man, while a man enrolled in the military gets paid and worshipped for it?

I suppose so. I mean, it changes the whole perspective on the matter if somebody is supposedly killing to protect a country, instead of his/herself, or his/her family. Then again, politics is a corrupt field, so the leaders being defended might have different or otherwise questionable motives for starting the war. But the human psyche will always perceive murder in the criminal sense with a certain degree of fear, even if it is done out of protection. Man fears what is not spelled out, unknown, or otherwise depicted in a positive light by a mass media to a certain extent; murder is sensationalized in its criminal sense, mostly in a negative light. Man just sees the murderer as "the villain", in spite of circumstance or motives. Even if that murder is more justified than the murders of certain soldiers.

[mrs.wes straker]

I was going to try and add something to this discussion, but then I realized that I haven't really decided what I think the true purpose of life is.

Then, I started reading Drake's posts and thought about how most people don't know what the purpose of life is, and how they never will.

Then, I thought about how empty the sorts are that don't bother thinking about this kind of thing at all.

Finally, I understood that it's best just to admit that one's ideas are just that--ideas, and it's best for one to admit that they don't know really know anything for certain, but at least they are thoughtful.

I can't vote on the poll because I can't bring myself to vote for just one reason. I think there are a few reasons behind our existence, not just one main one. Anyhow, they are only my speculations.

[Aaroneet]

Really, in the end, life is what you make it.

[Don't Look Behind You]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

I think there are a few reasons behind our existence, not just one main one.

I personally think there are no reasons behind our existance. My theory is that humanity is a "mistake" of nature. We just kind of happened. We don't fit into nature at all, we are too intelligent and too imperfect...and capable of destroying ourselves and the environment around us. The fact that humans can think makes them want answers although there are none. *I* think.
But I don't have a problem with this thought. I just live, try to develope as an individuality for the sake of developing as an individuality. That is all.
Infact I believe it is better to accept that there is no meaning instead of creating a protective bubble of illusions. But I respect some bubbles of illusions.

[Linen]

You forgot the option for:

"To seek wisdom and knowledge".

So I chose "To give and recieve love"

I really think it's a combination of love, wisdom, knowledge, becoming spiritually fulfilled, and of course reproduction for survival of he species.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Actually, if there's no absolute truth, to seek wisdom and knowledge would fit in the categories of 'no meaning to life' or, in a more utilitarian approach 'to increase one's social status'.
If, nevertheless, you believe that the purpose of seeking knowledge is to find the truth behind life, then that option is available.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by Draconysius

Ok, new discussion:
Is it right that a civilian man can face life in jail for killing another man, while a man enrolled in the military gets paid and worshipped for it?

Civilians should be able to kill people, too.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Everyone's responsible for their own choices. A civilian can kill if he wants. It just so happens that he might end up losing his life in return.
People some hundred years ago agreed that it was in their best interest to form a government, and that government needed an army. They allowed this army because it was in their best interests.
If it's not on our best interest, we have to try to change this; but until it stops being fair, it will keep being fair.
Personally I think there are other things to change about the government more important than changing its views on the necessity of an army.

[Circle V]

The immorality of something is not necessarily an objection to it. Think of the alternative: without an active military, a country could easily be overrun. A soldier who is barred from firing the first shot is in a poor position indeed.

A policeman can kill a man who is perceived as a threat to him or others, even if (as in war) the man is equally, even justifiably, convinced that the cop intends to harm him.

In many states, violence-- even lethal force-- is permitted by law if someone believes that another presents an immediate threat to his life (or, in some states, property). The degree of violence applied must be reasonable-- a 300-lb prizefighter who happens upon a burglar in his home would not be permitted to intentionally kill the intruder, while a 16-year-old girl might. The risk posed by the criminal is much greater to the girl than the man, so the girl would be justified in applying greater force in self-defense.

[Clockwork]

What's wrong about disabling one organism from acting and thinking of its own volition (killing someone)?

The more I think about, good and evil - what's right and wrong - simply boils down to being and/or making people happy or unhappy. Killing someone often makes those related to the victim unhappy (evil). Feeding the hungry often makes those fed happy (good), and such an action is perceived and a good thing.

I think we're all just seeking pleasure, in the end.

[Methadrine]

Besides, one can't judge a civilian straight against a soldier. The civilian is like us, he lives in a society, he goes to work to do whatever it is he does that brings profit to either the company itself, the government, or both. Living in this society requires laws to maintain order. Laws that we, the humans, have made up and applied as a code to live by. If he breaks the law, he gets punished. All according to our rules and laws.

The soldier on the other hand, is on one hand doing the same, i.e following the same rules to live in our society, but on the other hand he also lives by another code of laws, one that civilians do not follow and apply to. That is the laws we, once again the humans, came up with that handles warfare. Soldiers kills other soldiers and don't go to jail for it. Unless they break one of the subrules that's included into the whole "soldiering" thing. (Have I confused you all by now, or are you getting what I'm hinting at?)

So... why do we condemn a soldier for killing someone when we, as a matter of fact, told him to follow those rules, go kill people. (this is of course a vast simplification for the sake of discussion..) And since we made the rules as they are I don't think it's wrong for a civilian to go to jail for a murder when a soldier "gets away" with it for free, since it's part of his job.

Sorry if this is sloppy written or formulated, but it's 3 in the morning here so I'm not that sharp in the head at the moment.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Personally I think there are other things to change about the government more important than changing its views on the necessity of an army.

No soldiers would be nice, but I think most of us would settle for bored soldiers, for starters.

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

Haha, true.
Anyway, I don't believe war should be an approach to a problem; but the most effective way to end war is for a supreme superpower (i.e. America) to subdue all other factions.
The problem is, with big wars, rationalism is substituted by nationalism. Not many people would be happy not because they lose some rights, but because it's not their country anymore.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Haha, true.
Anyway, I don't believe war should be an approach to a problem; but the most effective way to end war is for a supreme superpower (i.e. America) to subdue all other factions.
The problem is, with big wars, rationalism is substituted by nationalism. Not many people would be happy not because they lose some rights, but because it's not their country anymore.

bolded portions are contradictory, and cannot both obtain.

war ends when life ends because war is at base motivated by a desire for more breathing room. as long as living beings are forced to brush elbows with out-groups, there will be conflict. you suggest the forcible creation of a single in-group. that already exists - humanity - and does no one any good.

[DeathChii]

I guess the difference is, when going to war, you KNOW that you are putting yourself up for possible death. You and other soldiers are all equiped to fight, whereas a civilian just going to your house and shooting you is no faire at all =[

[Clockwork]

Soldiers don't always shoot other soldiers.

[DeathChii]

?? Sorry I wasn't talking about the shooting. I was just talking about how soldiers go in to it knowing they have a possibility of dying, and are also given training and such. A civilian just lying on his couch, and then murdered, you could say is different because he didn't have any defence training or any idea that he was putting himself up for possible death...

[Cyntrox]

Eh. Can't really see the difference between a soldier fighting because he wants to keep himself/his family alive and a civilian - neither wants to die, one is just willing to take a bigger risk to stay alive.

[KontanKarite]

Meaning of life?

If there is a higher will to serve, I don't think we can ultimatly serve it willingly.

Essentially, I feel that people try to reach their own goals, that the meaning is missed because we are all trying to define ourselves. Most of the time, I feel that all the examples of great human nature, was simply a collateral effect of circumstances that befell them.

Essentially, to TRY to be a good or bad person is to TRY and be neither. To let your true nature show for what it is and to know it is the first step in knowing yourself and having a true sense of control in life and FINDING that meaning of life.

Basically, we ponder in quiet darkness the meaning of our existance, but before our eyes close, we are inclined to worry about the simple things in life that make it such a hassle, such as meeting your next bill payments or weather your grades are good enough.

I can't honestly think of any historical figure that lived for the good of humanity without an unconcious means.

The best anyone can do is to choose to serve an idea that can benefit everyone but I don't think there's anyone entirely selfless. Even Jesus had a motive.

The meaning of life eludes us always and will forever.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by DeathChii

?? Sorry I wasn't talking about the shooting. I was just talking about how soldiers go in to it knowing they have a possibility of dying, and are also given training and such. A civilian just lying on his couch, and then murdered, you could say is different because he didn't have any defence training or any idea that he was putting himself up for possible death...

That is true, but civilians are also victimized by soldiers at times, and they're just as innocent as any other murdered civilian.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

The meaning of life eludes us always and will forever.

existentialism suggests that meaning is determined by free-willed individuals making a conscious choice to not follow the alienating habits of their fellow humans, and instead creating for themselves any meaning this existence has.

most choose a religion, or had one chosen for them. some choose science or sports or other endeavors, which are then followed religiously. basically, religious thought-forms (matrices, if you will) obtain in the mind when the mind in question tries to address topics of ultimate concern, or ultimate meaning.

in the end, however, a choice is made whereupon a person says 'this is the ultimate explanation, and everything makes sense if we assume it'.

all the rest is commentary on detail.

[Godslayer Jillian]

What would the name be to believing that meaning in its simplest form needs two perceptions (like, I exist because you perceive me, and vice versa, and if I stopped being perceived I would be rendered meaningless, so I would stop existing)
and that reality is decided by those in power?

EDIT: Those were actually two questions with just one question mark, so I'm not necessarily expecting just one sol answer.

[Sobeh]

most philosophies buy into a subject-object view of reality. some say that everything is created by the subject (idealism), which is related to your idea that lack of perception directly results in a lack of that portion of reality. others suggest that reality exists independent of observations by subjects (realism, materialism, others).

one quick note: maybe your own self-perception is enough to exist, leading to a chicken-egg issue. <shrug>

existentialism, when refined (because i love the philosophy, but the main proponents thereof less so), suggests that reality is formed at the nexus between subject-subject relations, and that subject-object ideas are completely misinformed. so that's your first answer, potentially. there are other non-western philosophies that accomplish similar ends, but i'm usually turned off by their cultural accretions. nevertheless, while the obvious thought here is buddhism, look further back and investigate hinduism, especially shiva and kali devotees and their ideas.

shiva especially is fascinating, because as a creator god(dess) (s)he is portrayed as a dancer, the one art form where the creator and the creation are the same thing. study on this.

there is also a rather fruitful tangent vis-a-vis reality and the soma plant.

your second question asks about the veracity of the claim 'reality is determined by those in power'. the assumptions here are (1) reality can be decided upon, and (2) people can make those decisions (3) if they are powerful enough, such that (4) those decisions are at least semi-permanent and (5) apply to other people.

points of clarification: you need to define two terms, reality and power. does a powerful person in timbuktu affect my reality? or does this power have limits? is it political power, or willpower, or what?

even further, are there multiple realities, or just one? or do all realities start in multiplicity, with each subject-subject exchange altering the overall average and combining them, or does each new person make a new reality, and is it sacrosanct or later absorbed, and can people take out parts of reality they want to nurture or destroy, and how conscious is all of this, and...

yeah, that gets complex. you're going to have to write a bit more.

[KontanKarite]

Hmmm...

I regret missing the other 600 some odd posts you've made, Sobeh. You remind me of a friend of mine. He's a philosophy major. Sadly, I'd have to say he's a bit more confused than when he went in, or at least more dazzled by the mysteries of life.

[Linen]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Actually, if there's no absolute truth, to seek wisdom and knowledge would fit in the categories of 'no meaning to life' or, in a more utilitarian approach 'to increase one's social status'.
If, nevertheless, you believe that the purpose of seeking knowledge is to find the truth behind life, then that option is available.

Good point. Although I think the absolute truth is different for everyone (or at least everyone perceives it differently).