questions for graduates

[Drone Module]

on second thoughts, _george, move heaven and earth to get a philosophy degree

i feel a wetness in my knickers. i feel we should marry.

 

[_George]

i have a degree in philosophy. don't fucking bother if you ever want to be employable.

it said on some site i read that although philosophy isnt a vocatonal degree the skills you gain would be highly valued by employers..

 

[DotCommunist]

Still skint?

I'm storing riches in Heaven. (yes I am going to nick the pearly gates)

 

[Pickman's model]

i feel a wetness in my knickers.

get a colostomy bag

 

[Pickman's model]

it said on some site i read that although philosophy isnt a vocatonal degree the skills you gain would be highly valued by employers..

you seem to have missed an all-important "not"

 

[Drone Module]

it said on some site i read that although philosophy isnt a vocatonal degree the skills you gain would be highly valued by employers..

yes, but they are thinking skills... which you'd get in almost any degree these days. philosophy will give you very general skills..if you don't intend to go on an lecture in something its pretty useless.

i'd encourage you to do it despite that, simply because you'll never be exposed to so many ideas again in so structured an environment. there's not much in philosophy travelling wouldn't teach you...but it gives you the skills to test your thoughts.

 

[Drone Module]

get a colostomy bag

stick your fingers up my urethra

 

[_George]

yes, but they are thinking skills... which you'd get in almost any degree these days. philosophy will give you very general skills..if you don't intend to go on an lecture in something its pretty useless.

i'd encourage you to do it despite that, simply because you'll never be exposed to so many ideas again in so structured an environment. there's not much in philosophy travelling wouldn't teach you...but it gives you the skills to test your thoughts.

i test my thaughts by challanging people to argue with them. if people cant i assume the reasonings sound..

for example, on heaven and hell

if life was a test of how good or bad we are accoring to christian morrality then the threat of hell would invalidate the whole thing because people who would be bad without that threat would be good because of it so once they were beyond it in heaven say then they'd start being bad.

and, on the simuation argument

its possible that, to avoid simulations within simulations that the simulation would end when the first simulation was made. also, if posthumans create simulations then its very unlikley that this is the real world. therefore the only way for post humans to be likley to be real post humans is to not create a simulation. also because of the simulations within simulations thing theres a good chance that the act of creating the fist simulation would end that simulation and so end the reality of those post humans aswell as there conscusneses. so i dont think post humans will create/have created simulations for those reasons.

 

[Drone Module]

you bang on about something no one else was on about.............natural for philosophy

 

[_George]

you bang on about something no one else was on about.............natural for philosophy

actually i wanted to see what you thaught of my thaught

 

[Drone Module]

didn't mean to seem dismissive...had too much to drink to think properly jus now

 

[_George]

or anyone else...

perhaps the people who were in this thread insulting my intelligence yesterday would like to debate the above points?

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes well when you can debate with me without resorting to taking nonsensical positions youll have room to talk wont you

Love the patronisation!

You're funny, you are!

 

[Pickman's model]

i test my thaughts by challanging people to argue with them. if people cant i assume the reasonings sound..

for example, on heaven and hell

if life was a test of how good or bad we are accoring to christian morrality then the threat of hell would invalidate the whole thing because people who would be bad without that threat would be good because of it so once they were beyond it in heaven say then they'd start being bad.

and, on the simuation argument

its possible that, to avoid simulations within simulations that the simulation would end when the first simulation was made. also, if posthumans create simulations then its very unlikley that this is the real world. therefore the only way for post humans to be likley to be real post humans is to not create a simulation. also because of the simulations within simulations thing theres a good chance that the act of creating the fist simulation would end that simulation and so end the reality of those post humans aswell as there conscusneses. so i dont think post humans will create/have created simulations for those reasons.

perhaps you could outline what heaven and hell are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i test my thaughts by challanging people to argue with them. if people cant i assume the reasonings sound..

That's hardly a test, and you should never make assumptions based on a single instance.

 

[ViolentPanda]

or anyone else...

perhaps the people who were in this thread insulting my intelligence yesterday would like to debate the above points?

I'd have to be interested in the concept of heaven and/or hell, and as a Jew I find neither particularly interesting.
What I do find interesting is that your paragraph that starts "if life was a test..." makes the assumption that all actors would act through some form of application of rational choice theory, deciding to be good on earth to accrue the benefits of being good, and being bad in heaven because there would be no "payback" for misbehaving there, rather than acting from any other impulse at all.

 

[_George]

perhaps you could outline what heaven and hell are.

non existent places belived in by delusonal half wits and that were thaught up as a means of controling peoples behavour

what im attempting here is to tear apart such belief systems from the inside by showing that there internal reasoning is flawed and in doing so destroy those systems of belief so that the only way that those who currently believe can continue to do so is to turn away from reason all together thus turning themselves into intelectual cripples

 

[ViolentPanda]

perhaps you could outline what heaven and hell are.

Heaven is a place on earth according to Belinda Carlisle, whereas hell is apparently "other people" according to some Irish gobshite.

 

[Pickman's model]

non existent places belived in by delusonal half wits and that were thaught up as a means of controling peoples behavour

what im attempting here is to tear apart such belief systems from the inside by showing that there internal reasoning is flawed and in doing so destroy those systems of belief so that the only way that those who currently believe can continue to do so is to turn away from reason all together thus turning themselves into intelectual cripples

you're only a few hundred years behind the cutting edge on these issues.

 

[Pickman's model]

Heaven is a place on earth according to Belinda Carlisle, whereas hell is apparently "other people" according to some Irish gobshite.

jean paul sartre not traditionally considered either irish or a gobshite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

non existent places belived in by delusonal half wits and that were thaught up as a means of controling peoples behavour

what im attempting here is to tear apart such belief systems from the inside by showing that there internal reasoning is flawed and in doing so destroy those systems of belief so that the only way that those who currently believe can continue to do so is to turn away from reason all together thus turning themselves into intelectual cripples

It's already been done, over and over again, and still they believe. That's part of the nature of belief: Blind faith.

 

[_George]

I'd have to be interested in the concept of heaven and/or hell, and as a Jew I find neither particularly interesting.
What I do find interesting is that your paragraph that starts "if life was a test..." makes the assumption that all actors would act through some form of application of rational choice theory, deciding to be good on earth to accrue the benefits of being good, and being bad in heaven because there would be no "payback" for misbehaving there, rather than acting from any other impulse at all.

aha! i checked, jews do belive in post mortem retribution and in telling people about it in life.

the point is that because of telling people what behavour god wishes from us any attempt to assatain whos good and whos bad from there behavour in life cant work because many people who would be bad if left to there own devices wouldent be if told that quality of life in the afterlife depended on them not being.

 

[_George]

It's already been done, over and over again, and still they believe. That's part of the nature of belief: Blind faith.

i dont know that it has

most people who argue against such things use the 'lack of any sort of evidence' line rather than showing that the beleifs dont make any sense so couldent be true from the starting point of being unable to know in the same way your unable to know for sure weather theres faries

 

[ViolentPanda]

aha! i checked, jews do belive in post mortem retribution and in telling people about it in life.[/quote
We don't believe in heaven and hell.

the point is that because of telling people what behavour god wishes from us any attempt to assatain whos good and whos bad from there behavour in life cant work because many people who would be bad if left to there own devices wouldent be if told that quality of life in the afterlife depended on them not being.

You're assuming that all people are believers, which they're not, that all buy into the "reward versus punishment" paradigm, which they don't, and that there's any reason to quantify who is "good" and "bad" beyond their deeds. There isn't.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i dont know that it has

most people who argue against such things use the 'lack of any sort of evidence' line rather than showing that the beleifs dont make any sense so couldent be true from the starting point of being unable to know in the same way your unable to know for sure weather theres faries

Using the "lack of evidence" argument merely shows that the person attempting to disprove the existence of G-d hasn't studied the target of his argument. A believer will not, pretty much as an article of faith, accept any argument that precludes the existence of G-d.
Far better to argue that if G-d exists then she's very obviously not interventionist, and that therefore any prayers or other calls upon Her time are pointless. Believe by all means, just don't expect any reward for doing so.
I believe this argument was used by several well-known philosophers over the last several hundred years.

 

[ViolentPanda]

jean paul sartre not traditionally considered either irish or a gobshite.

He is by me. (thought it was Wilde!)
Want to make something of it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're only a few hundred years behind the cutting edge on these issues.

Mind you, "the cutting edge" is well boring, it has to be said.

 

[_George]

aha! i checked, jews do belive in post mortem retribution and in telling people about it in life.

We don't believe in heaven and hell.[/quote]

but you do belive in post mortem retribution and in telling people about it in life so my argument still applies

You're assuming that all people are believers, which they're not, that all buy into the "reward versus punishment" paradigm, which they don't,

but by getting people to belive and telling people about post mortem retribution religious types are helping invalidate gods method of determining whos good. all the post mortem retribution thing would do is seperate the bad people who are brave enough to risk post mortem retribution from everyone else.

and that there's any reason to quantify who is "good" and "bad" beyond their deeds. There isn't.

people who wouldve been bad were it not for the threats would revert back to there true way of being once the threats were removed from the equation in a heaven or retribution free afterlife.

 

[_George]

Using the "lack of evidence" argument merely shows that the person attempting to disprove the existence of G-d hasn't studied the target of his argument. A believer will not, pretty much as an article of faith, accept any argument that precludes the existence of G-d.
Far better to argue that if G-d exists then she's very obviously not interventionist, and that therefore any prayers or other calls upon Her time are pointless. Believe by all means, just don't expect any reward for doing so.
I believe this argument was used by several well-known philosophers over the last several hundred years.

actually the lack of evidence arument shows that theres no ratonal justification for seeing god as anything more than one of an infinate number of posibilities

but it does still leave that possibility. my argument breaks the mechanism of belief.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Can we merge this with the forklift thread and train the wretched boy to be a vital cog in the supply chain management industry, rather than encouraging his ghastly pretensions?