Log in

No account? Create an account
The League of Intrinsically Quizzical Philosophers' Journal
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 14 most recent journal entries recorded in The League of Intrinsically Quizzical Philosophers' LiveJournal:

Saturday, March 4th, 2006
1:44 am
[teleological existential christians]=bullshit
God, Kierkegaard makes me laugh...silly existentialist

I mean, how can you provide a partial "rational" proof for the superiority of faith only to say in the end that faith is the ultimate absurdity??

what a laugh.

Any thoughts on the issue, for those of you unfamiliar with Kierkegaard and his many pseudonyms I would be more than willing to include a link..of some, sort!

Current Mood: <---LSD?

(9 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Monday, December 12th, 2005
8:58 pm
Mill is a dumbass....
Mill vaguely attempts to define superior pleasures as those inducing a higher “quality” of happiness independent of the quantity of pleasure perceived:

“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison of small account. (8)”

However, Mill appears to have neglected that in order for the quality of two pleasures to be divined in this manor, each needs to have an equal “quantity” which in the case of physical pleasures may include a temporal aspect. For example, the pleasure derived from consuming nourishment for a few seconds versus a longer amount of time might alter the “quantity” and magnitude of pleasure derived from the act; the same is true for rational pleasures such as studying philosophical texts. Comparing any non-rational pleasure to a rational one is likewise impossible unless the pleasure being compared takes into account the passage of time.

More importantly, Mill’s employment of a human intellect to act as a “competent judge” of rational and non-rational pleasures is equally fallacious. Though Mill states that, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides (10)”, his conclusion is disappointingly non sequitur. It is not true that the “other party”, or rational agent, is capable of experiencing pleasures as the ‘mentally challenged’ individual or swine are concerned. Given that a pig or fool is fully satiated, it is not possible to conclude from a human perspective if such a state is truly superior or not; a pig lacks the faculties to appreciate rational pleasures.

Conversely, humans have a capacity to experience both physical and non-physical pleasures simultaneously. It is difficult to experience complete independence of either physical or non-physical pleasures when engaging in actions that are ostensibly “physical” in nature. Take sexual intercourse for example: though the act itself definitely provides physical pleasure, many intelligent individuals would choose sexual intercourse not only for the purely physical pleasure resulting from the action, but rather for the non-physical emotional pleasures. Mill’s fault lies in his assumption that rational-emotional-ethical pleasures are entirely independent of their physical counterparts. I am certain that Mill would admit if pressed that humans are unable to experience pleasures lacking a certain degree of heterogeny between physical and non-physical pleasure.

Conclusion: Mill is a total quack!
Any thoughts on the subject?
Are there really "higher" and "lower" pleasures as Mill says?

Furthermore, should the principle of utility [greatest good = happiness for all] be applied as absolute?
To be honest, i think Mill should get off his high horse and acknowledge that humanity and its requisite aspects are not as inherently good as he depicts them to be...

essentially, Evil will always win,
because "Good is Dumb"! [Spaceballs]

Current Mood: Yeah, definitly Trisomy 21

(Expand your mind)

Saturday, November 5th, 2005
4:11 pm
For a while now I have been calling it my "limit theory"....
Incorporating it into arguments across a range of disciplines, it has served me well; however, no system is perfect. I have an intuitive sense that something is missing, and I would like to present it before the humble philosophers of the League for scrutiny.

Here is the brief version of my theory as of 6AM Friday November 5th:

Theoretically, pure forms are obscured from communication because of three main factors...

1] Perceptual/Physical limitation - this includes all physical limitations impairing the ability of an individual to perceive a certain idea that specifically relates to the senses...i.e. the "senses" = touch, taste, smell, sight..and so on.

2] Mental limitations - though this technically should be included under 1 as a physical limitation, I believe that it is more precise to separate them; it is more logical for Mental limitations to refer to the limitations imposed by the ability of a certain individual to process the sense perception data and make it ready to be processed for conclusions....this is specific to the physiology of the brain. Hypothalamic and pons activity directs early "filters" and beginning transmitting processes toward the proper higher logic areas of the brain.

3] Intelligence limitations - limitations placed innately upon an individual's ability to use perfect logic when attempting to make conclusions...this includes IQ. A person with a higher* IQ is inherently better at using logic than someone with a lesser IQ. Thus, the transmission of data necessary to create a conclusion is considerably less than that of the more stupid person. ^in IQ = ^in processing power directly related to logic.

4](case sensitive) the limitations of the communicating medium are an important factor. Firstly, say that the medium was only language...which is unlikely...the ability to communicate is limited by the ability of the language to express constituent ideas universally without ambiguity. Alterations in the specific definitions decrease the accuracy of the individual to perceive the pure idea properly.

Taking our perception of the original idea to be nothing more than an approximation of it, the only logical determination that can be made concerning the pure form resides within the error bounds created by the above 4 factors. Considering that in many cases the limitations of language do not prevent understanding of an idea to the extent that no communication is possible....the same for the other 3, definitions of pure forms are still able to be created with reasonable certainty of their preservation within a process of communication.....

I don't quite remember where I was going with this,
but those are my "limits" to the communication of pure forms.

Maybe I will remember my point after a few hours sleep.

Current Mood: can't be crazy...cause i take

(8 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Sunday, September 25th, 2005
12:26 pm
Does Justice actually benefit the possessor. I don't think so, especially because of Plato's definition of Justice: I.E. reliance on the essence of man being divided into three parts. This has been disproved effectively by modern neuroscience.

Any Thoughts?
Is it good to be Just, or better to be evil?

(4 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Wednesday, September 7th, 2005
5:01 pm
Oh, and another thing.
I almost forgot,

Today I raised a question in class, does history itself change with the changing times...
Some argued the necessity of subjectivity.
Personally, I believe that if an objective set of facts/conditions existed at one point,
it is possible to arrive quite close to the original situation,
without including a whole lot of contemporary bias.

In this, one approaches a limit of an objective past?

Any Thoughts?

Current Mood: Vulcan

(16 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

4:54 pm
On the subject of Virtue...
In light of my study of Socrates...
What do you think about Virtue?

How is it defined?
Is it possible to be virtuous if virtue doesn't benefit its possessor?
Honestly, I think that Socrates' argument is somewhat correct; However, it hinges on the fact that Gods exist,
That they are virtuous,
and that our own spirits pass on to the afterlife….not to mention that our spirits exist in the conventional sense.

Without assuming this,
Socrates' position would fall.

Current Mood: Inquisitive, as usual...

(9 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Tuesday, September 6th, 2005
9:51 pm
What's love got to do with it?
Seriously, what does love have to do with it?
I think that emotions do give us a physiological advantage.
But are they WORth anything...honestly?
Likewise, what role do they play with the spirit? What is the spirit?
Does it even exist?
[These are just some questions that just popped into my head]

Though I am a firm agnostic, I find the ambiguity of a higher power to be one of the most stimulating thoughts one can entertain.

Any Thoughts?

Current Mood: Satis mentis

(13 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Friday, August 12th, 2005
11:41 am
At what age do you start having a child clip his or her own fingernails?

(3 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Monday, July 11th, 2005
8:25 pm

(4 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Thursday, July 7th, 2005
3:55 pm
God and a heaven so far, far, far away
What is God?
Is it nothing more than a superficial explanation for the unexplained?
A universally subconscious desire for order in a universe that we can not possibly begin to comprehend?
What is it about this concept that causes some people argue so adamantly about it?

Lets begin to discuss that great and all powerful subject: God, and the consequences of his absence, Chaos.

Current Mood: preparatario

(20 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Monday, July 4th, 2005
8:49 pm
I saw Ryan's film for the first time today.
Personally, I believe that it heralds discussion of its own. It is quite interesting as a film. However, questions are left unanswered as to the nature of man...whether or not any of the assertions made in the film such as "free love" and "let's love one another" are possible in real life. How does racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. play a role in answering this question.
Should we even dream about this utopia without betraying our own proclivities?

(4 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Sunday, July 3rd, 2005
7:03 pm
It's a like...uh o HOT DOG! U know...[The position of the "soul" in contemporary thought]
Though advised against it by some of my fellow philosophy majors/minors/whatever, I must pose the fundamental "MIND-BRAIN" duality question: Are the mind and brain both the same thing? Is the entire scope of ourselves defined by our NEUROBIOLOGY? Or can some other "force" be acting upon our personality and our resulting decisions...could the soul have an interaction with the Brain and act as a part of our "mind": the greater self that is all encompassing and includes everything that we know, understand, think, feel, remember, etc.

Any Thoughts?
I hope at least that we can open our minds to a serious discussion on the topic.
We can involve religious realism and forms as valid sources of proof...this is just a prompt. If you care to talk about something else, feel free as long as it preserves an atmosphere of higher thought [npi]

Current Mood: thoughtful

(11 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

Saturday, June 25th, 2005
1:46 pm
"We would have had sex, but there just weren't enough people (Sleeper - Woody Alllen)"
Thanks Whitney for doing the honors;
Though, we still need more people before this community can have its meaningful conversation about anything other than ST. lol! I have posted on the "Philosophy club" and an ST forum just to see who is interested...tell Ryan, Ron (If he will ever speak to me again...), Jeeves, etc. All the better. I've talked with them before about the "big issues" and they are not so inept as I had thought at first...

with u it is a different story altogether! As a writer and poet, u have always been a philosopher, "No, no...It's better than keen, it's Kugat!" [Can u tell that I just watched Sleeper this morning]

From St. Louis: Dif-tor heh smusma!

Current Mood: enthralled

(9 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

11:58 am
A delightful community filled with much candy for the children.
Posting must happen here. I do believe I'll do the honour of doing so for the first time. Done and Done.

(2 Thoughts Transcended | Expand your mind)

About LiveJournal.com