Philosophies on life

Lets write up a bit of phikosophy of our own everyone lives questioning the point of it all. But lets be at least intelligent about it and think before writing not just same old same old.

I'd write one but it has slipped my mind maybe later. Then lets all argue about and then argue some more keep the conflict going

 

Philosophies about life? Well, there really aren't that many, you know. Maybe I should just save the others all the work and sum them up for you:

[1] Open universe/Closed universe
This is the generally accepted theory of the Big Bang and the endless expansion of the universe. Although scientists are finding more and more proof that this is probably the right way to think about life, the universe and everything, it's also a very sad theory. It basically means that the universe is a one time event: stars will burn brightly for a moment in time, then their fire will go out and they will basically become big balls of ash. This will eventually happen throughout the universe until it has become a big impossibility. This theory doesn't give most people much hope. It's the kind of theory that makes you wonder whether you wouldn't be better off if you just killed yourself immediately because, well, there really isn't much meaning to it all, now is there? It's all "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." Just great.
The only difference between an open and a closed universe is the expansion: an open universe will expand for all eternity, a closed universe will eventually stop expanding. They're both awful places, though.

[2] Cyclic universe/Perpetual return (Nietzsche)
This is just a special form of a closed universe and science fiction writers really really like this one. It's the theory that states that everything began with a Big friggin' Bang, that the universe will expand for quite some time, but that at a certain point in space and time (when the force with which the universe is expanding is getting smaller than the gravitational forces between all the matter in that universe) the universe will start shrinking again. Everything will return to it's first state via the Big Crunch. After which there will be a new Big Bang and so on. Hence: cyclic universe.
Nietzsche had a similar theory, called "perpetual return". He firmly believed that reality was just something like a movie on endless repeat. Everything happens again and again and again and - what's more - everytime that it happens, it is EXACTLY THE SAME! That means that I've written this post before and I will write it again. Frightening, not?

[3] Religion/Intelligent design
You don't dig science? You don't think reality could have been formed by means of a Big Bang? Well then, there's still hope for you! You could join one of the many religions humans have invented to have a reason to stop using their intelligence and start following their hearts. All you need is something called 'faith'. You just need to believe that some form of intelligence (God? Little Green Men?) created the universe and everything in it and, well, that's really all there is to it. You don't have to ask yourself stupid questions anymore (what's my purpose? what's the meaning of it all? why do I feel horny so often? and so on), because you already know the answer: it's all because God/Allah/some sort of alien/and so on wanted this or that to happen. Fucked up theory if you ask me. And flawed: if God/Allah/... created everything, then whom created God/Allah/...? You just can't answer a question like that.

[4] Solipsism
Solipsism is kinda of a broad term, but I'm talking about hardcore solipsism here: where you think that you and only you are the only piece of reality, the big friggin' mastermind and everything and everyone else is just a figment of your enormous imagination. Great theory if you're an ego-tripper. Again, it's seriously flawed: if you created everything, then whom created you? D'uh!

[5] Plato's cave/The Matrix
There is no spoon, people. Wake up. You're all dreaming. Yep.

And that's about it, methinks. Thank you very much.

 

I've actually had a solipsistic experience, or something like it, and the scary thing was that it happened before I knew what solipsism was, I'd read the word when I read 1984 a year earlier, but never wondered what it was nor cared about it and probably forgot about it when I read the next page.

It happened late one night, at 2 am or something, but it was during the week-end so I wasn't tired. I was watching some movie and had to go to the bathroom, and on the way there, I started realizing how everything fit together perfectly, and it couldn't be the work by someone other than me. While being in the bathroom, I felt happier and happier that I'd finally figured it out, and when I was back in my room, I felt I could actually end it if I wanted to. I sat down on my bed and laughed while my vision started to blur and I felt I was leaving this world of my mind and going somewhere outside it. But I chickened out and went back to watching the movie.

 

Floyd seems to have overlooked the latest addition:
When the black holes that form become large enough, they actually cause a tear in the space-time continum and most of what they pull in after that is actually spewed out into a new "pocket universe".

I rather like that.

 

Solopsism, eh? I had a great time a few years back, believing I was the only sentient being on the planet. Well, not exactly; more like I was in a state of perpetual dreams. Things seemed to be working so well for me, everything fell into place just as I wanted it to. Then I realized that there had to be other people doing the same thing I was doing. Not necessarily in my dream, but outside, in the real world. I believed that reality was merely what I thought it was supposed to be, and I could thus change it as I saw fit. However, as soon as I started thinking of people outside of my mind, I started thinking of how improbable it was for me to create an entire planet of people about whom I didn't give two shits. Sometimes I still wonder if my dreams are actually my passing through the real world, or somewhere else entirely.
A few times, I think I may have "died". During blackouts, or having been knocked unconscious, I would literally wander into another person's thoughts, and I would sometimes see myself through other people's eyes. One moment in particular was two years ago during a horrible bike accident in which I was chiefly involed. I spent some time in my own mind, but gradually I noticed I was walking the streets of town while wearing someone else's clothes. Eventually, I saw a young man lying in a pool of blood, unconscious, on a stone bridge. As I got closer, I saw several others come to the young man, trying to wake him. I took a knee at his side and saw his face, and I woke up surrounded by a group of EMT's and a few bystanders, one of whom had the same clothes that I was "wearing."
It adds some credence to the solopsism argument, if you ask me. But, to be honest, I gave that one up.
To be honest, my major philosophical drive is behind the cyclic universe, now, anyway. Mainly, I think the universe is cyclical because I refuse to believe something so massive and unknown could ever die.

 

This is really more of Creationalist theory and less life Philosophy but this is cool too. Nothingness theory: My theory on how something came about from nothing is that Everything in the whole universe is made of something various element of atoms etc. But outside of that is nothing! if you look at it It'll be like putting on no clip in doom and going through a wall. You have to see what you last saw as there is nothing to look at. Beyond our universe is something quadrillion time bigger absolute nothingness. However this nothing has deteriorated in some parts and is unraveling in some places hence our universe. How did it unravel? Sentience a burning streak of positive energy caused by nothing unraveling? Nobody knows.

As for Solipism or whatever its called thats very similar to the philospophy of the Signers in Planescape. Everyone is a figment of everyone elses imagination but rather than you being the only sentient, you are also the figment of someone else imagination so everything you see and experience is exactly what you want to see and experience and its the same for everyone else. Thats how solipism works in a broad perspective.
But I don't think something created us I mean things don't create things only people create things. If the intellgent wise people of today don't have the answers what makes anyone think that the ignorant, highly superstitious peoples of before have the friggen answers.

 

There's a theory that everyone lives in their own personal universe, called a microcosm. Within that microcosm, you are the creator or destroyer of everything that you can perceive past, present, or future. Literally, you are the god, devil, hero, or victim of the universe. Everything fits perfectly within your universe, and you're capable of achieving anything within your universe. All power lies with you.
Unfortunately, the bloke next to you is also god of his microverse. And the guy next to him, so forth and so on. These individual universes all combine into the universe around us, or macrocosm.

Another version is the collective consciousness. Everything that you see, hear, feel, touch etc makes up your consciousness, basically everything that you are. The consciousness of everyone then combines into some larger collective consiousness, which some people might believe is God, or some other omniscient being, capable of knowing everything that everyone else has ever known. Combine that with the fact that time is only an illusion created by finite minds to stave off choas, and this super-consciousness can perceive everything that has ever been percieved past, present, or future. And its watching you right now....

Regarding blackholes, Last I heard they're suspected of being the driving force behind the creation of NEW stars, and they think that they're located at the center of every galaxy in space. Thats what keeps the whole mess spinning around, causing gases to combine and raw materials to form into planets or suns. This would cause the galaxy to eventually be consumed into its core, which some suspect would then cause a massive explosion, ejecting everything outwords. Therefore, the universe is constantly being reborn, expanding and contracting and spreading molecules throughout itself in some orderly form of choas. Hence, no big bang, no big crunch, and therefore - change is the only constant in the universe.

 

You know, I've always kinda thought maybe that's what was going on...eventually, everything would be absorbed into a massive singularity, and then be expunged back into the universe.
The way I thought of it, though, is that it was somehow the same thing as the "cyclic universe" theory. I mean...look at it side by side, and it's almost identical.
Black holes at the center of every galaxy isn't as surprising as one would like to think. To have that much gravity, a galaxy would need to be many times more massive (filled with even MORE copious amounts of stars). Either that, or be forced into itself from the outside (galactic collisions?). Actually...if a galaxy collided with another galaxy, it could probably mean the universe was already shrinking.

 

I'm getting dizzy reading all of this... :xoldrop:

 

Actually, it happens all the time. In fact, in a few billion years, our own galaxy is set to collide with the Andromeda galaxy....

check it out

 

Oh, you mean in the time that I'll no longer be alive?

 

Read the link again slick, and you'll notice that the Antannae galaxies are currently colliding. If you meant this galaxy, well a few billion years galactically speaking is just a blink of an eye.

 

I was referring to andromeda hitting the milky way.

 

Philosophies about life? Ok, I'll post my pro-corporation one that gets me hated by tree-huggers all over the internet.

Mother nature is not a sentient creature and has absolutely no concern for anything.

Paved cities and plastic milk cartons are just as natural maple leaves and walnuts.

Why is this?

Simple: they are the products of other natural products. Namely, humanity.

A beaver changes his enviroment by building a dam, he disrupts the "order" of what once was. Man does the same when he (or woman and she) builds a hydroelectric dam and changes the flow of a river.

If one is not a crime against nature, then why is the other?

A forest is a complex ecosystem consisting of thousands of plants, agleas, fungi, insects, mammals, and birds. A city consists of the exact same things only different proportions.

If a forest is not a crime against nature, then why is a city? Both have come about naturally as a consequence of natural and sometimes random events taking place on the Earth for billions of years.

While a toxic spill may look bad and kill off thousands of animals by contaminating the enviroment, the same can be said for a volcanoe erruption that releases huge amounts of sulfur into the air and surrounding water table. So if a volcaneo is not a crime against nature, then why is an oil spill? Even the oil itself is the product of Nature's (note that nature is not a thing) own naturall processes.

If we accept these musings as fact, then is it ok to expose vats areas of the earth to chemicals and industrial byproducts lethal to a majority of the Earth's current organisms? In a way, no. Primarily because doing such a thing is a serious threat to humanity and no organism should render itself extinct intentionally.

As we have the power to exterminate every predatory animal that stands in our way, do we have the right to do so? Yes and no. As needed humans as a whole will do what they wish. They don't kill for no reason, despite what some might have you believe. War, politics, philosophy, religion... all are concerned chiefly with one thing: resources. The aquisition of resources equates to wealth. Wealth to prosperity. Prosperity to procreation. Procreation to survival. A poacher poaches for to aquire wealth so that he can do all of those things. A nation manipulates politics to go to war to do the same. Usually even a selfish corporation of government is going to improve someone's life through it's wealth, directly or indirectly. Injustices will be dealth with and the proper rewards handed out.

Everything works itself out in the end.

So, humanity is just another animal. Call it a virus if you want, but viruses are perhaps one of the most pivatol organisms within the ecosystem. They help maintain the balance. So does humanity. If he wipes out of all of the sabertooth tigers who once preyed on the buffalo and deer, then he takes his place. The same for the lions and gazelle or the tiger and the wild boar.

Other animals who came long before humanity rendered one another extinct. Volcanic eruptions, polar shifts, global warming and cooling, and meteor and comet impacts did the same. So humanity, being a part of nature, can't commit a crime against it. For every animal he decimates he either takes its place or allows another to do so. For every animal hurt by his expansion, another thrives.

-------

You might wander, what got me thinking this way?

I used to try and figure out what separated humans from animals. I could never figure out what this was. Naturally, I decided that there was no difference. Humans are animals. Ofcourse that means then that everything we do is natural in the grand scheme of things and nothing to fret about as long as it doesn't harm us. Even temporary setbacks and catastrophes serve to educate and preper us for yet more dangerous ones to come.

 

Interesting theorem Langolier, but inherently wrong. I'll point you to the synopsis of your argument.

This is wrong, although I can see how you took it the wrong way. Take your first sentence. It's completely true that many types of animals became extinct before the time of humans. However, no creature other than humans has ever rendered another creature very destructive, but they occur with no malice of intent. The volcano doesn't try to kill off a species, it just goes off. The comet doesn't have a steering wheel, it can't get out of our way. They fall under the classification of shit that happens.

Humans, however, are fully in control of their actions. We can decide to shoot a bird. We can thereafter decide to continue shooting more of that type of bird, until they're aren't any left. And, through our lack of foresight, we can decide to render a species extinct.

You can try to argue that the Sears Tower is natural, but you'll continue coming to one big problem; it isn't. Something that is in its natural state is inherently the opposite of something that has been manipulated through technology.

That said, it is true that some creatures, like beavers, also manipulate nature in a way equatable to technology. But you fail to see something basic; neither a beaver's dam, nor a hydroelectric plant is a 'crime against nature.' A crime against nature is applying technology in a way that causes blatant damage to the ecosystem.

Think about how picking up a hundred dollar bill you find on the street isn't a crime, but removing one from another person's pocket is. It isn't wrong to simply obtain a hundred dollars. It's wrong to do it in a way that subjects an otherwise innocent party to undue hardship or damage.

If you want to classify volcanoes as crimes against nature, based on that definition, then do so. But the important thing to realize is that we can't prevent volcanoes. We can try to repair some of the damage afterwards, but its something we can't stop. However, we can take steps to prevent oil spills and other such disasters, also crimes against nature if volcanoes are. So we're in a position where we know for a fact that a few crimes will eventually happen, but does that mean we shouldn't work to prevent many more crimes from happening at the same time?

------------------

Allow me to reduce your argument down to its more basic components. Everything we do is natural. Therefore, any action you or I take, cannot be morally wrong, since it's the way nature intended it. Therefore, I am no longer responsible for any of my actions, because they are natural.

I would love to see what you say about the morality of murdering another person, because if we scale your argument down to the individual level, no action we take is wrong as long as it doesn't harm the individual. If I were to kill for no reason, that would be frivolous, and yet still not wrong because it doesn't inherently threaten my survival. If I were to kill someone for money, or for their woman, or for some other spoil of war, it would be, in fact, justifiable, because it allows me to better survive. Is suicide the only thing you actually find wrong?

The fact is humans are different than animals, in one and only one way. We're sentient. It means we also must be responsible for our actions, and seek to minimize the damage we deal to others through our actions.

Of course the survival of humanity is more important to humanity than the survival of the East American Green-Speckled Bullfrog, but isn't wrong to disregard the survival of that type of frog and pursue a course of action when another process would achieve the same end without threatening another species?

 

Also Volcanies and Cyclones may well be destructive. But if you want to start an ecosystem thats the way to go. Volcanoes do indeed release magma, but that forms the base of an island. Ash that is thrown up into the air but it soon settles, the only thing that comes close to a better natural fertiliser is probably silt from the nile and shit. Lichen spores arrive from high winds in these areas. They gain a foothold on the rocks and because they are a symbiotic entity meaning they are actually two organisms working together to each others benefit gains protection from its fungus part and food from its plant part. they release acids that deteriorate the rock over decades making the soil even more fertile. Cyclones carry seeds from other islands, ever wonder why a coconut is hollow? Because a) its more bouyant b) Its light and can be carried by stong winds. It settles on the island by being washed in by waves and quickly sprouts roots in the sand. Palm trees. Birds soon fly in to live in the lush forest created by the settled seeds. Other animals arrive on floating branches etc. Natural disaster have been around since this planets formation and life has adapted to exist with them.

Toxic waste on the other hand is NOT particularly furtile. The smoke we produce is not just carbon but other poisonous chemicles that create clouds that will make acid rain. When beavers cut down trees to make dams they don't remove the entire forest upsetting the entile habitat as well as causing erosion as trees hold together soil with their roots. Radioactive waste can break apart a DNA strand and so chances of that DNA changing into something dangerous to an organisms well being increase as does cancer. Further more its takes less time for diamonds to form naturally than it does take the stuff to be redered harmless.

We can sure as hell kill all the animals but that will NOT kill all PREDATORY animals. Bacteria have been on this planet longer than any other organism and they are definately predators. Further more if you take into account that they reproduce asexually with mitosis they also more or less immortal. The harder we try and kill the things the stronger they become then we end up with super bacteria like golden staph. We are not a virus in anyway shape or form. For one thing Viruses are not classified a living organisms. 1. to be considered a living entity you need to reproduce within your own species, viruses use the dna of other organisms to replicate themselves. 2. Viruses do not have any cells whatsoever, they are merely RNA wrapped in a bit of a fancy phosphlipid sheath. Humans are more like bacteria if you consider city and everything living in them as single cell. Food get transported in and waste out. The big Library with all the archives scematics etc are the Nucleus. Factorys are the Ribosome who create new things out of the scematics in the library and the raw materials. The endoplasmic reticulum is the sewer and roadways and the Storage tanks are the Golgi Apparatus.

Blah blah blah humans are ignorant of what we actually do and what we are but because we elimnate diesese and war food shortages we over populate and ultimately pollute and over fish and kill the environment to make ends meet. Of course war doesn't do much for the land either but hey the less of us there are the better right? Well wrong if we go we'll upset the ecosystem of the seagull, those bird who use traffic lights to get food, bacttia that live in our guts, domesticated animals etc. Of course this can change if the species is strong and has right DNA for the right Environment.

 

My philosophy on life is this:

In the beginning (of time), God created everything, which includes the space-time continuum. Space and time began when God created them. Where did God come frome? Who knows, but that's irrelevant to us because in this universe, God is the ultimate power, the controlling force. We cannot transcend God, so why does it matter where He came from?

When God created the Earth, he placed on it every species of plant, animal, bacteria, etc. that have ever existed. There was no evolution, no long process of adaptation. Every living thing was given what it needed to survive in an ever-changing, often hostile ecosystem.

God created man to be different from the animals, to be self-aware, to make choices based on sentient thought rather than instinct, to have a soul. God gave man dominance over all the plants and animals, and a free will to choose to do good or evil.

Why does God allow man to do evil? I think of it this way: If you were going to write a book or make a movie, would it be all happy moments, would every character be a good guy, would there be no conflict? No. There can be no triumph without conflict, no vindication without a wrong to be vindicated, no reconciliation without contention. All the happiest moments come after the darkest ones. Without contrast, an image can be only black or white. Good is defined by evil and vice versa.

When it is all played out, the story of our universe will be an epic beyond imagining, a song in which the final triumphal chord will echo for eternity.

 

A good scientist would never influence the results of his universe simulation. Unless it's a game and we are NPCs, and that person is a 13-year old kid and likes to kill everyone in the game :-o