Share
View previous topicGo downView next topic
Member
Member
Posts : 21
Join date : 2016-12-17
View user profilehttp://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198040282256/

Philosophy

on Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:50 am
Philosophy is considered to be the origin of all disciplines, excepts language and religion, since all current studies, excepts the named ones, emerged from it.

In this topic, You could share Your ideas and discuss competing ideas with others. Walls of texts are common, so reading a lot will be a given. Nevertheless, please keep in mind to follow the basic format and remain nice to others!

i will be updating this post to include new Topic Titles, so that new members could share their ideas at any time on any topic discussed previously.

Format:


  • Topics are discussed in parallel. To make discussions go smooth, please start by specifying which topic(s) Your reply would contribute to. Please use one (or some) of the letters (possibly followed by a number) listed in Topic Title to declare it.
  • If You are starting a new topic, please declare it. You could start by giving a new title. If not, i will decide on the title. In either case, i'll update Topic Title to list the new topic.
  • If You are replying to an earlier statement, please do also quote the relevant parts and put it inside a spoiler if it is long.
  • If possible, please break Your reply in multiple parts, so that each part has only a single title. If possible, please do also break quotes if You are replying to them individually.

Topic Title:

  • A - To sacrifice an innocent person or to let many people die.
  • B - Unspecified
  • C - Unspecified
  • D - Unspecified
  • E - Unspecified


Last edited by Saana on Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Topic Title update.)
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 22
Join date : 2017-02-25
Age : 18
Location : Portugal
View user profilehttp://thepuntyranttimes.weebly.com

Re: Philosophy

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:00 pm
so, uh, I don´t really follow how I´m suppose to go about this
Member
Member
Posts : 21
Join date : 2016-12-17
View user profilehttp://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198040282256/

Explanation

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:33 pm
Idea wrote:so, uh, I don´t really follow how I´m suppose to go about this

For starters, think about a topic. Introduce it as follow:

  • Title of the subject.
  • Description of the subject.
  • Wonder about the different possibilities, scenarios and/or etc.
  • What do You think about it?


Then, after there is a topic or two, reply to a specific topic as follow:


    1. Title. (A? B? C?)
    2. Quote specific sentences You want to reply to, if applicable.
    3. Content of agreement, disagreement, extension and/or etc.



    1. Title. (B? C? D?)
    2. Quote again if applicable.
    3. Content.

    .
    .
    .

  • (Repeat)

i have not yet started a topic since i am giving You and ColdPursuit the freedom of choice. But if none is going to introduce, i'll eventually do it.

Is this clear?
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 22
Join date : 2017-02-25
Age : 18
Location : Portugal
View user profilehttp://thepuntyranttimes.weebly.com

Re: Philosophy

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:49 pm
I see. Seems a bit complicated and overkill in some aspects, but I gues you did your best. Thanks
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 3
Join date : 2017-02-26
Age : 23
View user profile

Re: Philosophy

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:55 pm
Idea wrote:I see. Seems a bit complicated and overkill in some aspects, but I guess you did your best. Thanks
That seems to be a common status quo bias, but whatever. This task doesn't seem too hard to me personally, dilemmas r always things that come easily to my mind to discuss about, so I'll just try to think of at least one somewhat good one to talk about.

I'll start with the Trolley problem, which goes as follows:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?
Member
Member
Posts : 21
Join date : 2016-12-17
View user profilehttp://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198040282256/

Re: Philosophy

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:38 pm

Topic Title: A.

ColdPursuit wrote:I'll start with the Trolley problem, which goes as follows:
Spoiler:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?

When it comes to being a Hero, Emiya Shirou and Emiya Kiritsugu from Fate Series come to my mind. In Fate/Kaleid Liner PRISMA ILLYA, Illya is ultimately faced with the choice to either sacrifice her friend Miyu, or to allow the whole world to be destroyed. Kuro chooses for Miyu above the whole world, with her response that she knew a person (=Kiritsugu) who was a Hero of Justice, sacrificing the few to save the many, yet when it came to a person he cared about (=Illya), he decided to be a man, and saved her instead of the world.
From Fate Zero, we know that Kiritsugu went as far as killing his parents to save many many more. Yet, in Fate/Kaleid Liner PRISMA ILLYA, when it came to his daughter, he chose to save her instead. Not to say that the father of Kiritsugu was innocent, but his mother definitely was.
i myself do not know where the line lies. A Hero of Justice should choose to sacrifice one person to save the many. But what if that one person would be a dear person? Fate Series seems to suggest that a parent is there for their child, even at the cost of their ideals, or for the ideals of their child. As such, Kiritsugu could have killed his parents, but not his daughter. But i am not a fan of this. Our parents are as unparallel as our childs. If Kiritsugu could sacrifice his parents, then he should have sacrificed his daughter as well.


Last edited by Saana on Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Incomplete.)
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 22
Join date : 2017-02-25
Age : 18
Location : Portugal
View user profilehttp://thepuntyranttimes.weebly.com

Re: Philosophy

on Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:55 pm
ColdPursuit wrote:
Idea wrote:I see. Seems a bit complicated and overkill in some aspects, but I guess you did your best. Thanks
That seems to be a common status quo bias, but whatever. This task doesn't seem too hard to me personally, dilemmas r always things that come easily to my mind to discuss about, so I'll just try to think of at least one somewhat good one to talk about.
I was referring to the rules on how, what order, and quoting to post. Not the discussion.

ColdPursuit wrote:
I'll start with the Trolley problem, which goes as follows:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?
It believe in a system of value dependence: when one value is dependent on another to exist, then that value is less important than the one it is dependent. However, in a scenario where the values are the same or not dependent on one another by any means, then the real value is quantifiable, that is, how much of each particular value can you save?
So, for this situation, because all lives are equally important, saving 5 lives outrules saving 1 life, regardless of personal feelings. The only exception would be if certain circumstances regarding the five lifes and the one life would make it so the five lifes could present future danger to more lives.

Member
Member
Posts : 21
Join date : 2016-12-17
View user profilehttp://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198040282256/

Hesitation

on Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:37 am

Topic Title: A.

ColdPursuit wrote:Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?

my soul tells me the right answer is to not choose who gets to live and who gets to die. Yet, no matter how much i think about it, i get the answer that saving many lives at the cost of the few is what a Hero would do.

Thought often frightens me; Logic is often two-sided. With the same starting point, one could reach two opposite sides. On another verse, logic may in some cases also mislead us. Despair works in that way. For those who dwell in thought, it corrupts them into thinking of change, leading them to the wrong answer.

What should i do?
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 3
Join date : 2017-02-26
Age : 23
View user profile

Re: Philosophy

on Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:28 am
Idea wrote:
It believe in a system of value dependence: when one value is dependent on another to exist, then that value is less important than the one it is dependent. However, in a scenario where the values are the same or not dependent on one another by any means, then the real value is quantifiable, that is, how much of each particular value can you save?

So, for this situation, because all lives are equally important, saving 5 lives outrules saving 1 life, regardless of personal feelings. The only exception would be if certain circumstances regarding the five lives and the one life would make it so the five lives could present future danger to more lives.

Hmm, what a well-thought out answer. You've listed pretty much all the possibilities on the spectrum with the most common being saving 5 is better due to the mere quantity and even the other choice in that sometimes that 1 life can be equitable to 5 lives, that 1 life could be the life of an important person or leader for example, which if they die it could cause further panic and distress for the lives of others. I like philosophers that are cunning enough to provide an answer that covers nearly all their bases. Well played.

Saana wrote:

Topic Title: A.






ColdPursuit wrote:I'll start with the Trolley problem, which goes as follows:
Spoiler:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?

When it comes to being a Hero, Emiya Shirou and Emiya Kiritsugu from Fate Series come to my mind. In Fate/Kaleid Liner PRISMA ILLYA, Illya is ultimately faced with the choice to either sacrifice her friend Miyu, or to allow the whole world to be destroyed. Kuro chooses for Miyu above the whole world, with her response that she knew a person (=Kiritsugu) who was a Hero of Justice, sacrificing the few to save the many, yet when it came to a person he cared about (=Illya), he decided to be a man, and saved her instead of the world.
From Fate Zero, we know that Kiritsugu went as far as killing his parents to save many many more. Yet, in Fate/Kaleid Liner PRISMA ILLYA, when it came to his daughter, he chose to save her instead. Not to say that the father of Kiritsugu was innocent, but his mother definitely was.
i myself do not know where the line lies. A Hero of Justice should choose to sacrifice one person to save the many. But what if that one person would be a dear person? Fate Series seems to suggest that a parent is there for their child, even at the cost of their ideals, or for the ideals of their child. As such, Kiritsugu could have killed his parents, but not his daughter. But i am not a fan of this. Our parents are as unparallel as our childs. If Kiritsugu could sacrifice his parents, then he should have sacrificed his daughter as well.
Saana wrote:

Topic Title: A.






ColdPursuit wrote:Which is it morally better to do: to allow 5 people to die who you could have saved, or to make a deliberate decision to kill 1 person?

my soul tells me the right answer is to not choose who gets to live and who gets to die. Yet, no matter how much i think about it, i get the answer that saving many lives at the cost of the few is what a Hero would do.

Thought often frightens me; Logic is often two-sided. With the same starting point, one could reach two opposite sides. On another verse, logic may in some cases also mislead us. Despair works in that way. For those who dwell in thought, it corrupts them into thinking of change, leading them to the wrong answer.

What should i do?

Hmm, there’s a lot to tackle on with this sort of answer, and you list some good examples from the Nasuverse, but I’d like to go a bit deeper with it. When it comes to Shirou Emiya and his hero counterpart Archer for example most ppl immediately think of the Unlimited Blade Works route, where he is a typical Hero of Justice and would pretty much sacrifice the few for the many. But Archer was torn by that along with Kiritsugu, both had wished for a way to be a Hero of Justice and not have any sacrifices whatsoever. This is also what is definitive of not only the end of Fate Zero, but the end of Fate Stay Night following the Heaven’s Feel route. Both Shirou and Kiritsugu couldn’t save everyone, I mean no one really can, but at the very least they saved one they would care about. Kiritsugu took his time to save Shirou and let the rest of the city continue to burn when he possibly could’ve have saved more others, Shirou chooses Sakura despite the fact that her curse from the Grail could ravage and destroy humanity itself. And in Fate Kaleid Liner Prism Illya, well u’ve already done a good enough explanation. This is also something I’d say is a commonality of Nasu himself and u should see similar ideas of being a hero and choosing the one person against all others and the world also echo out through his other works such as Kara no Kyoukai and Tsukihime.

Also for the sake of being good philosophers here, we need to define some things more clearly as well. What is law? What is justice? What does it mean to be a hero? What is a hero? What is a hero of justice? What is the difference between a hero and a hero of justice? What is a villain? What are morals? What are ethics? What is the difference between morals and ethics?

Before anyone here get’s to thinking and trying to answer any of those questions, I’d like to give a quick overview of some things within philosophy from another convo I had with Saana ironically:

“Philosophy is mostly focused on the theoretical vs. the "practical" side of things. Practicality is something that only really comes out of politics, which is only 1 field out of the 5 main fields of philosophy. To do some rough estimates only 20-40% of philosophy is ever practical, the other 60-80% is usually theoretical sort of stuff.
Only really politics and occasionally esthetics is concerned with philosophy being practical.

Metaphysics almost never cares as it deals with religion usually, epistemology only cares if the knowledge is nurtured properly under certain political forces. Some ppl r taught the Bible and creationism as a regular activity in comparison to Darwin and the theory of evolution. Now is that right? There r ppl on both sides of the issue, but when it comes to philosophy, we can't really say who or what is right until we get to politics, which even then is still rather opinionative (for philosophy depending on who has the best set of arguments based on how they reflect on the dialectics). Ethics doesn't also usually care about practicality. It's only really during politics where ideas such as law and justice r added that add the proper flavors for us to actually care about the consequences of ethical choices.”

And finally I’d like to offer another dilemma for us to consider in conjunction of Saana’s notions of justice and a hero of justice. This will be from a dilemma from Franz Kafka’s story “Before the Law.” This is how it goes:

“A man (hero?) from the country seeks the law and wishes to gain entry to the law through an open doorway, but the doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says that it is possible "but not now". The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man that he accepts them "so that you do not think you have failed to do anything." The man does not attempt to murder or hurt the doorkeeper to gain the law, but waits at the door until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. The doorkeeper answers "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.""

And for our discussion I'd like to discuss the potential meaning of the story.

Imagine for example being in a courtroom fighting for what is right. The gatekeeper can be seen as a professional, such as a mediator. If you are not able to demonstrate to the mediator why you should win the case, you will not have the verdict entered in your favor. As such, if the man was not able to get past the gatekeeper he would never gain access to the law. The same can be seen for those fighting to change how laws are in society. People can try several times to make changes; however, many are not able to get the changes they seek.

The man gave up possessions and items he had brought to try and win over the gatekeeper. This is similar to people trying over and over again to make changes or to try and achieve a specific goal yet, only to wear themselves out. However, the gatekeeper took the items but told the man he was only taking them so that the man would not feel like a failure, as he had put everything he had into getting to the law. It is similar when people try to achieve specific goals in life however fail. Even though the outcome of accomplishing the set goal was not met, but as long as they put in all their effort, they will not feel like failures because they put in all the effort that was possible. For example someone may have dreams of becoming a judge. They may exhaust all their resources to become one, such as spending time and money to become a lawyer first. Afterwards, they may go onto practice for many years as a lawyer hoping that one day they will become a judge. That individual may do everything in their power that is needed, but not get onto the bench. However, all the effort did not go to waste. They were still able to accomplish the first step, which was becoming a lawyer.

On the other hand, giving items to the gatekeeper can also be seen as bribery. In life sometimes we as humans want to try and make problems go away quickly, in this case the problem was getting past the gatekeeper. The best way was seen as giving stuff to the gatekeeper, which can also be seen as bribery. The man thought that if he gave items to the gatekeeper, it may cause the gatekeeper to slip up and let the man go past the gate. Although it can be seen as though Kafka is telling readers to try anything and everything to get to their goals so they do not have to feel like failures. It can also be seen as saying to try bribery. This type of corruption can be found in the government system, which creates laws in today’s society. Officials and authority figures may be corrupt, and they may take bribes from individuals who are trying to get ahead in life without having to wait or go around obstacles.

This man went on a journey to try and understand the law, and to try and get a sense of guidance and purpose. When he failed to do so, due to him getting old and dying, the gatekeeper closed the entrance that was made specifically for him. This shows how everyone has their own journey in life, they make their own paths and they try and find their own sense of guidance. Some people turn to the law, they look at the rules and regulations, which have been set in place and try to understand what is going on and why things are the way they are. There are many people who try and understand the law and who at the same time try and make changes to it. People may try for years and years to make changes that may not be possible to make.

But alternatively we can also say this. When a government is not democratic, it usually takes care of those who are influential or strong in their power. The little man has no representation unless he unites with others or his peers. This is the cause of civil wars.

However, justice or the legal system should be available to everyone regardless of their financial or class status. A parallel with this story is the Berlin Wall placed by a government that was not thinking of what was best for the citizens. The people snuck from West to East Berlin and back again. Only individuals tried to challenge the authorities. It took many years of isolation before the government allowed the wall to be torn down.

Men, like this man from the country, are completely incapable of facing up to the system. They just wait for justice to come to them; they wait for permission to seek it, instead of just getting up and taking action and freeing themselves.

From here we can say that the theme of the parable is that man cannot wait for the law to come to him. He cannot sit down and hope that one day he will be able to be a part of the law. Every man has a right to justice. The common man must be willing to fight or stand up for his civil rights and do what is necessary to have the legal system work for him. The man sits for years waiting to be able to be a part of the law. There are men who are unwilling to challenge the system for fear of the ramifications both to himself and his family. Without the will to enter the gate under his own volition, the man wastes his life waiting for something to happen.

All in all there are many possible implications to this parable. It is inaccessible; individuals are subject to the law even if they do not know the foundations of it. The man however, has the option of disobeying the gatekeeper and just going in. However, he chose not to, this shows the relationship between authority and law. We can also see how the man does not enter even though the gatekeeper is not stopping him. This shows the method of legal positivism, which focuses on facts and not the values. There is also a social contract which can be seen. The man has given all his trust to the authority figure (the gatekeeper) and abides what he says as he believes the gatekeeper is trustworthy. As bad as the man wants to go in, he believes that the gatekeeper will eventually let him in. At the same time this parable shows a relationship, which is lifelong and constant.

Many people struggle to understand the law. There is plenty of confusion and doubt around it as it is not always easy to grasp and understand. While at the same time there are people in place who get to decide how the law should be and not everyone is given the chance to give their opinions and ideas. As we get older we come to seek purpose and some sort of order in our lives, especially when things are in chaos. As humans we want health when we grow older and our health declines, we want youth as we age and get older, there is no set principle to guide us. We always want some sort of reason, anything that will help us understand life, and this is where searching for purpose in life and the law comes in focus.

So once again to repeat, for the sake of being good philosophers here, we need to define some things more clearly as well. What is law? What is justice? What does it mean to be a hero? What is a hero? What is a hero of justice? What is the difference between a hero and a hero of justice? What is a villain? What are morals? What are ethics? What is the difference between morals and ethics? And of course be free to add any of ur personal thoughts not limited to the questions I’ve asked either.
Sponsored content

Re: Philosophy

View previous topicBack to topView next topic
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum