Timeline for Is there a set of basic moral "rules", outside of religion or culture, that all intelligent life might theoretically agree on?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2016 at 22:02 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 19:36 | comment | added | Eliot G York | @CortAmmon What is this "purpose of life"? | |
| May 10, 2016 at 19:36 | comment | added | Eliot G York | @CortAmmon "Good" and "Bad" are not universal constructs. Something is good and bad based on your personal perception and method of evaluation. What ab | |
| May 10, 2016 at 2:03 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @alampert22 how are good and bad defined in such systems? | |
| May 10, 2016 at 0:32 | comment | added | Eliot G York | @CortAmmon What is this "purpose of life"? I apologize if my original comment was terse and perhaps dismissive, it was not my intention. I just do not understand the idea behind this "purpose of life" concept. Perhaps one comes to believe that nothing else exists outside of yourself, as DesCartes surmised. Then there was no purpose, only existence. Or perhaps you come under the impression that time is cyclical. Nietzsche pondered this and arrived at the premise that we all live a life of "Eternal Return" and in accepting it, we confront "the heaviest of burdens". Can you share some insight. | |
| May 9, 2016 at 20:19 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @alampert22 It sounds like you may have a different definition of the phrase "purpose of life." As for your former question, I have not found those who I have discussed "purpose" with agree that part of the definition of what makes something a 'purpose of life' is that the act of striving towards it is intrinsically good, so that side of the argument is part of the definitions of those I've talked to. As for the second half, I provided my rationale, based on the logic that if there is no purpose, there is no barometer for determinign "bad" | |
| May 9, 2016 at 19:55 | comment | added | Eliot G York | @CortAmmon. Please explain your tautology, because your premise seems to miss the foundational component. 1) If there is a purpose to life, why is searching for it intrinsically good? 2) if there is no purpose, why would searching for one intrinsically not bad? | |
| May 9, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @alampert22 May I recommend spending some time on the forum, reading the many different kinds of answers that we find on this forum. Then, upvote your favorite. Or, if none are your favorite, feel free to add you own answer! | |
| May 9, 2016 at 16:29 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @alampert22 I'll keep your definition of "philosophical" in mind for future answers, thanks. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:20 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @nocomprende I believe the differences in our positions is one of linguistics, not content. It would be trivial for me to phrase what you describe as a purpose, and it would be trivial for you to phrase what I described as not needing to know whether one is a part of a design for the universe or not. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 15:47 | comment | added | user16869 | My thought is that searching for ideals is not really effective. If we could "discover" the supposed purposes and morals and so on, we would have by now, and they would be as indisputable as gravity or mathematics. Since they are not, enough time and blood have been wasted so let's get on with what we can agree on. Buddhism expresses a lot of this well: "Here is how to be better off, but there is no great picture behind it, it is simply more effective to live this way." I can like things or care about people without that somehow being part of the "design" of the universe. I am free. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 4:49 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @nocomprende It sounds to me like you see several purposes to life =) | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 3:18 | comment | added | user16869 | I feel that there is no purpose to life, and so to pursue a search for one is harmful because it wastes time and effort on a wrong goal. There are proper goals to pursue, such as understanding the correct nature of reality, and helping others to see it. This means undoing ego-centric views, not extending everyone liberty to bolster them. Allowing people to persist in superstition and error is not loving. | |
| Dec 30, 2014 at 0:27 | history | answered | Cort Ammon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |