Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse

  • 47 Replies
  • 11141 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:06 pm »
Quote from: Madness
I figured we could use an umbrella thread. And I didn't feel like hijacking any other threads with alternate compass bearings.

To start off the wonderful menagerie; I've decide that Fate is Machiavelli's Fortune.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:12 pm »
Quote from: jogrady
In the academic world, not necessarily the novels

What is, in layman terms, RSBs philosophical thesis?
Who influences his academic work (which philosophers)?
Sorry I do not read TPB, just a big fan of the novels.
Who on this forum is/has achieved an advanced degree in philosophy?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:18 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Quote from: jogrady
In the academic world, not necessarily the novels

What is, in layman terms, RSBs philosophical thesis?
Who influences his academic work (which philosophers)?
Sorry I do not read TPB, just a big fan of the novels.
Who on this forum is/has achieved an advanced degree in philosophy?

the only degree i have is in rolling up but my take on the Bakker's "point" is: cognitive blindness is inherent to the mechanism of consciousness, ie "we don't know what we don't know". god's viewpoint is that of an objective vantage, where the absolute whole of reality can be countenanced at a glance. God can definitively say whether or not someone/something is evil or debased, because he can See everything, hence objective morality. throw in a pinch of secretive monastic order shenanigans, a dash of dick aliens, and a spoonful of pyrotechnics, and bake for a few years. serves a moderately sized fanbase.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:24 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
I thought the cognitive shortcomings of the various gods like Yatwer were being shown up? Or are they just powerful entities and it's this solitary god that's got this perfect view?

Also, even if that gods got a perfect view, why is that objective morality? Because he's just. that. powerful. and. made. everything?

The other qualifiers are?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:29 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Individual gods are subject to the same pitfalls, immanent entities like the God of Gods have a perfect view. Think of it: in the more malleable realms of the Outside there is no objective morality because the morality of individual realms are decided by the agencies that influence them. But in an objective universe that cannot be shaped by the desires of sentient beings, morality exists because it is the tension between rigid reality and the aims and desires of conscious beings that produces good and evil. CS Lewis says something similar about the Christian God only being able to test our spiritual mettle on a level playing field, ie objective reality. The God is able to trace the consequences of every action purely because of his vantage. He can definitively say whether or not your drinking is harming those around you, if you drive recklessly, or endanger people with your sloppy job performance. He sees everything, inside and out. There is no ignorance for Him, only truth.

we even know for sure from mimara's judging eye that he plays favorites with his creation: a pig wallowing in mud being objectively lower on the hierarchy of the universe than a priest

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:34 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
I buy that he can see the nuances, down to the atom, of driving or such.

But your using judgemental words like 'recklessly', as if it's an emperical measurement, then saying this god can measure it all perfectly.

I don't mind the 'seeing perfectly'.

I just wonder where this 'recklessly' measure comes from?

Are you sure it's not simply the archtecture of your own minds thinking process, that leads to toward keeping its community safe (a trait useful toward survival), but you're treating that achitecture as something IN the world (using my rose analogy from here - treating it as if the petal that is 'recklessness' exists in the world). As if recklessness is a kind of element on a periodic table that this god you speak of can measure down to the atom?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:42 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
An omniscient observer would be privvy to your intentions and ultimate culpability in all events, good or bad. If you knowingly blow a stop sign, that's driving recklessly. If you support a corporation that runs sweatshops, then the degree you are aware of their shady business practices is the degree you are complicit in them. Of course, what is the threshold between blissfully ignorant and guilty by association? I would leave that up the perspective of an omniscient being, but it must be a complex interplay of personal disposition, inclination, quality and quantity of information etc. I don't see any reason why an omniscient being would not have knowledge of the moral drive behind every action.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:46 pm »
Quote from: Bakker User
I think what Callan has been saying on this subject is that since all human perception is ultimately subjective, anything arising from their perceptual beliefs must also be ultimately subjective. Or something like that.

Actually, I think it would be helpful if he defined "objective" in his usage. Another way to look at what he's saying is that objective only = measurable items. In that case, he wouldn't consider anything non-physical as objective even if it "exists" - some third category for Earwan spiritual entities, then?

If the second block is on-target, then it may clear up the confusion that came to pass in that older thread.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:51 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: bbaztek
An omniscient observer would be privvy to your intentions and ultimate culpability in all events, good or bad. If you knowingly blow a stop sign, that's driving recklessly.
God follows our road laws?

I appreciate some sort of emperic measure involved (measure passing a stop sign is relatively clean cut). But the initial assignation of moral value to it - where does that arrise from?

Quote
If you support a corporation that runs sweatshops, then the degree you are aware of their shady business practices is the degree you are complicit in them.

And if the omniscient god can tell that if the child of someone working there would have died had they been out of work from lack of medicine, what then?

And why is it shady?

Just is?

Who designates it as such?

Quote
Of course, what is the threshold between blissfully ignorant and guilty by association? I would leave that up the perspective of an omniscient being, but it must be a complex interplay of personal disposition, inclination, quality and quantity of information etc. I don't see any reason why an omniscient being would not have knowledge of the moral drive behind every action.
Moral drive, as in our perspective of morality? Perhaps somewhat like the robot in Red Dwarf who travels through time and transforms into a duplicate of the person they set out to judge?

Quote
In that case, he wouldn't consider anything non-physical as objective even if it "exists"
I'll bite: So what's non-physical and also exists? Is that like "What's brown and sticky?"?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2013, 08:31:57 pm »
Quote from: Wilshire
Non-physical and also exists?
I didn't thoroughly read through all the posts so if I'm way off just ignore me :P, wouldn't the answer simply be: any abstract concept. Math, philosophy... the gnosis.

I've probably missed the whole point though.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2013, 08:32:02 pm »
Quote from: Bakker User
Quote from: Wilshire
any abstract concept.

To be fair, abstract concepts in a fully physical universe would only exist - quite literally - within our heads, as prions or whatever. This especially if you take Bakker's position on the written word as not a "kind of thing" but as a cognitive event (I paraphrase).

Quote from: Callan S.
I'll bite: So what's non-physical and also exists? Is that like "What's brown and sticky?"?

What's physical and also exists?  ;)

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2013, 08:32:08 pm »
Quote from: Wilshire
Quote from: Bakker User
... abstract concepts in a fully physical universe ... exist


So... whats the problem? Like I said, it exists. Who's head it is or is not in doesn't matter.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2013, 08:32:14 pm »
Quote from: Bakker User
As in, abstractions are not necessarily non-physical.

Quote
Non-physical and also exists?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2013, 08:32:19 pm »
Quote from: Duskweaver
How are we defining 'physical' and 'non-physical' for the purposes of this discussion?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2013, 08:32:24 pm »
Quote from: Wilshire
Well if abstractions are not necessarily non-physical, then that is the same as saying that abstractions are not necessarily physical.

So, by your own definition your question has already been answered. Something non-physical that also exists is any abstract concept (assuming that its not physical, which you already said is possible).

If you want an example, try 'mathematics'. Math isn't physical unless you write it down, but it still exists whether or not you do so. This logic can be applied to most "abstract" concepts, which is why I answered your question as such already.

Asking the same question over and over won't get you a different answer unless you provide a more rigorous explanation of what you want.