Materialists......

[Belz...]

Seeing as some of my points were ignored, I'm just going to bump them back:

The presence of infinity ? The cosmos is still in the presence of infinity, and yet the laws continue to exist.

And I wouldn't call a "place" where there's no time, space or energy "infinity".

I'd like to know how you can call a dimensionless thing "infinite". Also, the universe's point of "infinite" mass or whatnot is kinda non-existent. As far as I understand it, it tends towards infinity, but there is no infinite per se, because before that point time and space break down.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

He was RESURRECTED, Geoff.

This was an example, a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, all I am interested in is Jesus's motivations for doing what he did. I am also stipulating that no supernatural events actually took place. He was crucified. He died. The end.

OK?

We are talking about an example of an act of altruism. We do not need to introduce literal intepretations of other bits of the story about Jesus. They are irrelevant to the context of the discussion.

 

[chriswl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

Does the person who wrote that wikipedia article think he's actually explaining anything to anyone? If we take words like "being", "existence" and "nothingness" to have their normal everyday meanings then the whole article is utter gibberish.

Alternatively, we can spend the next year studying Heidegger and maybe start to figure out what he's getting at, but who has the time, and in any case the wikipedia article would still be redundant.

I don't believe that there are any truly worthwhile ideas that cannot be intelligibly summarised, at some level, in a paragraph or two of plain English. Most ideas from continental philosophy can't, which makes me suspect they are a waste of time, just part of a complicated game that some academics play.

 

[Belz...]

This was an example, a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, all I am interested in is Jesus's motivations for doing what he did. I am also stipulating that no supernatural events actually took place. He was crucified. He died. The end.

OK?

You forgot the last part where he rose up, talked to his disciples and went back to daddy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You forgot the last part where he rose up, talked to his disciples and went back to daddy.

Since we have now completely lost the thread of the debate and started throwing soft tomatoes at naive Christianity, I'll not continue down this line.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This was an example, a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, all I am interested in is Jesus's motivations for doing what he did. I am also stipulating that no supernatural events actually took place. He was crucified. He died. The end.

OK?

We are talking about an example of an act of altruism. We do not need to introduce literal intepretations of other bits of the story about Jesus. They are irrelevant to the context of the discussion.

Hang on a mo. You're going to toss off the supernatural stuff, but still insist he was altruistic? How do you know he wasn't a self-serving fakir who staged his death and then walked away?

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

Since we have now completely lost the thread of the debate and started throwing soft tomatoes at naive Christianity, I'll not continue down this line.

Well, for the record, you're the one who sent it down that path. A genuine, reality-based example would've done, assuming you could find one.

ETA: Oh, and I'm with Paul on this one. Of you doubt the supernatural elements, then his death is also suspect.

 

[I less than three logic]

Well, for the record, you're the one who sent it down that path. A genuine, reality-based example would've done, assuming you could find one.

Isn't the problem that these metaphysical philosophers can't agree what a "reality-based" example means?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hang on a mo. You're going to toss off the supernatural stuff, but still insist he was altruistic? How do you know he wasn't a self-serving fakir who staged his death and then walked away?

~~ Paul

I don't. I am assuming he didn't because I wanted to give an example of altruism, and I gave the example of Jesus, specifying that I was not interested in any of the supernatural stuff and only in his supposed motivation for what he supposedly did. All the rest is irrelevant, especially your latest comment.

Never in the history of the JREF has a point been so completely missed by so many people. It does not matter what actually happened. It is an example of altruism, not a historical claim. I am only interested in the symbolism. Not the history.



EDIT: It's like explaining the Schroedingers cat paradox to a bunch of people who respond with "But what if it was a dog?" or "What if the switch that releases the poision doesn't work?"

 

[Dark Jaguar]

If you are going to establish altruistic behavior, why use a mere thought experiment? What does that show? Try an ACTUAL altruistic sacrifice.

By the way, here's two contrary claims from me. People can be altruistic. People do so for their own personal reasons.



I mean, if someone sacrifices their life to save others, it can be simply because they want others to live. The important thing to understand though is they WANT the others to live. They are fulfilling their own desire for others to live. This doesn't make it any less noble an act, I'm just saying that yes, everything anyone ever does is done to fulfil their own desires. For my part, what makes the act selfish or not is the nature of those desires.

 

[I less than three logic]

Without the supernatural stuff you have reason to believe that Jesus did not sacrifice himself. I think Thomas Paine said it better than I could in The Age of Reason:

The manner in which he was apprehended shows that he was not much known at that time; and it shows also, that the meetings he then held with his followers were in secret; and that he had given over or suspended preaching publicly. Judas could not otherwise betray him than by giving information where he was, and pointing him out to the officers that went to arrest him; and the reason for employing and paying Judas to do this could arise only from the cause already mentioned, that of his not being much known and living concealed.

The idea of his concealment not only agrees very ill with his reputed divinity, but associates with it something of pusillanimity; and his being betrayed, or in other words, his being apprehended, on the information of one of his followers, shows that he did not intend to be apprehended, and consequently that he did not intend to be crucified.

So, unless the supernatural stuff is included (that he was sent by God to die for our sins, and that he knew this), you can not reasonably call his death a sacrifice. Therefore, without his sacrifice, your example of altruism is lost, and with the supernatural he was resurrected, thus lost nothing and your example is lost. So this particular example isn't one at all.

 

[Belz...]

Never in the history of the JREF has a point been so completely missed by so many people. It does not matter what actually happened. It is an example of altruism, not a historical claim. I am only interested in the symbolism. Not the history.

Then allow me to rephrase my question: can you find any actual, factual example of genuinely altruistic behaviour that does not, in any way, benefit the person performing the act ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then allow me to rephrase my question: can you find any actual, factual example of genuinely altruistic behaviour that does not, in any way, benefit the person performing the act ?

The question is impossible to answer for the following reason:

Whatever example I might give, you will find a way to interpret it as not-altruistic. Given the way the last example was treated, I have no intention of giving another. I could interpret all sorts of acts as genuinely altruistic. Our reasons for disagreeing on the interpretation cannot be objectively resolved either, because they depend on too many other things on which we do not agree. There's not enough common ground in the framework via which we judge these things for us to be able to discuss this sensibly.

 

[I less than three logic]

That sounds like the same problem everyone seems to have when you ask them to define "mind" for you. Yet, you appear to consider the tactic completely legitimate in that context.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That sounds like the same problem everyone seems to have when you ask them to define "mind" for you. Yet, you appear to consider the tactic completely legitimate in that context.

It's not the same.

I am allowing people to define mind in any way they choose, but I am not allowed to define altruism any way I choose. Whichever way they define mind, I can show there is a problem. I can define altruism in such a way that there is no problem.

Put it another way: there are a set of assumptions by which I can make altruism intelligible and a self-consistent concept. There is no set of assumptions which allow both materialism to be true and a non-redundant definition of mind to be supplied.

Put it another way: Altruism is logically consistent with my metaphysics. Minds are not logically consistent with materialism. My position is coherent. Materialists who talk about minds are incoherent.

 

[Tricky]

Then allow me to rephrase my question: can you find any actual, factual example of genuinely altruistic behaviour that does not, in any way, benefit the person performing the act ?

I can't remember where I first heard the phrase, but someone once said that all sentient beings operate our of "enlightened self-interest". In this, I find the key phrase to be "enlightened". Of course it can be said that whenever we do good, we do it for our own pleasure, though I might make some exceptions for things like maternal instincts, which sometimes appear to be impossible to override. But by experiencing empathy and by understanding the complex links that reveal the "big picture", we find that that our self-interests change.

When you are an infant, you are almost entirely self-centered, caring nothing about the needs of others. Taunting and bullying seem to be more prevalent in school-age children than in young adults (with notable exceptions). So it seems that as we grow and mature in our enlightenment, we make different choices based on our maturing view of self-interest.

But it seems silly to do away with a perfectly useful concept like "altruism" simply because the concept is a little more complicated than it seems at first. I would make a similar statement about the term "free will" (or plain old "choice", as it boils down to.) Upon close inspection, it may appear that there is no actual choice, only cause and effect. But by the time you get to that point, you've thrown out an easy-to-understand concept that has common and universal usage.

I like to think of myself as an altruist. It makes me feel good. I feel even better if I can rationally justify as "enlightened", the self-interest that makes me altruistic.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't. I am assuming he didn't because I wanted to give an example of altruism, and I gave the example of Jesus, specifying that I was not interested in any of the supernatural stuff and only in his supposed motivation for what he supposedly did. All the rest is irrelevant, especially your latest comment.

Oh, his supposed motivation. I missed the part where it didn't have to be actual motivation. Sorry. Actually, I think it's God's motivation, not Jesus's, but anyway. Oh wait, sorry, confused again.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, his supposed motivation.

Yes.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Never in the history of the JREF has a point been so completely missed by so many people. It does not matter what actually happened. It is an example of altruism, not a historical claim. I am only interested in the symbolism. Not the history.

I think the problem is that this thread has become bloated and difficult to follow. Or maybe it's just me.

Time for a new thread, methinks.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I think the problem is that this thread has become bloated and difficult to follow. Or maybe it's just me.

Time for a new thread, methinks.

~~ Paul

True, but there is something in us that makes us seek out the familiar threads, even if bloated and byzantine. So many promising threads are strewn by the wayside and never seen, while the 28-page juggernauts lumber onwards, making a few salient points, and a lot of useless noise.