Hedonism and its effects.

[rogue1896]

i don't like thinking about all this philosiphical stuff and so on. it makes my head hurt to be honest. i just follow the path that is in front of me. it's that simple. and my outlook on Hedonism or any other type of religion/cult/etc. is that you can practice whatever you want, as long as you A) don't try to FORCE your opinions onto other people, B) don't utilize you're feelings on a certain matter in a culture that does not support yours (i.e. - what emprworm said about the hmongs) C-?) there's a few others too but i don't feel like thinking about it too much. like i said, it makes my head hurt.

[nemafakei]

Logic is always valid, but our interpretation and application is often flawed and tainted by our culture.

To be a master of logic is simple enough, but to be a just and impartial master of its application is far harder.

"logic is impossible for a long period of time

/

how can you say this? What LOGIC do you use to make this claim?"

TMA is right in that no human can maintain logic for too long, nor is any man-made application of logic going to be indefinitely valid.

"if there is not bad, than there is not good "

Not correct. It's just very difficult to class evil without good, and visa versa.

[Caid Ivik]

As we are humans, we have the free will to do anything. But if we'll do evil things (altough it could be good for us personally), soon will we feel the bad influence of this. People allowed hate and we have wars. People allowed free sexual partnership and we have AIDS. Nearly all bad things are caused of human liberality. That's why I am straight opponent of hedonism.

[emprworm]

"Logic is always valid, but our interpretation and application is often flawed and tainted by our culture."

I agree with this. Culture taints man's ability to think logically (not logic itself). Logic is above culture. Culture is beneath logic. That is what I have been trying to say.

"To be a master of logic is simple enough, but to be a just and impartial master of its application is far harder."

I see this point as well.

"logic is impossible for a long period of time

how can you say this? What LOGIC do you use to make this claim?"

TMA is right in that no human can maintain logic for too long, nor is any man-made application of logic going to be indefinitely valid.

I thought what TMA was saying is that logic itself will eventually decay. You interpreted him as saying that an individual cannot be logical for a lengthy period of time.

If TMA meant that logic itself decay's, or is subject to culture, he is empirically mistaken. If TMA meant that an individual cannot maintain logical reasoning over time, he might have a point. I wouldnt make that an absolute claim, however. Some people may always think logically, they might reach differing conclusions- that is what might change, though their ability to think in logical constructs does not.

"

"if there is not bad, than there is not good "

Not correct. It's just very difficult to class evil without good, and visa versa.

"

My point here is that you only need a CONCEPT of evil to class good. Evil does not have to actually exist.

The Taoist philosophy of balance states that all things negative and positvie must actually exist (not just in concept). My point is that this is a flawed philosophy, making all of Taoism irrational. I further cited proof with my statement by showing the illustration of the concepts of "infinite" and "finite." Finite cannot be classed without infinite. Yet we only need a CONCEPT of an infinite amount of finite things. It does not have to ACTUALLY exist (and indeed- it does not)

[VigilVirus]

Emprworm, there are no absolute truths is a paradox statement, but what I mean is many things throughout history have been proven and then disproven.

God is not logical and has nothing to do with logic - it's a matter of faith.

[VigilVirus]

;D Just as a joke here is a proof that 1+1=3. I know that you guys are smart enough to find the mistake.

A=B

A*A=B*A

A^2=BA

A^2-B^2=BA-B^2

(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)

A+B=B

2B=B

If B=1, then 1=2

;D

[Anathema]

(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)

A+B = B

::)

[emprworm]

Emprworm, there are no absolute truths is a paradox statement, but what I mean is many things throughout history have been proven and then disproven.

well good to see you saw the paradox! :)

Things that are proven and disproven are generally theories of science. All of science relies upon logic. Take away logic and nothing could be proven.

Proven by definition means "Such and such...THEREFORE....such and such"

The THEREFORE is where logic exists. It is not subject to proof. it just is.

the part after the THEREFORE might change over time. The THEREFORE, however, does not ever change.

"God is not logical and has nothing to do with logic - it's a matter of faith."

I believe it is fully logical to embrace the view that the universe was created. It is faith, yes, but not blind faith. To deny that the universe was created is also faith.

[Caid Ivik]

So, there are prooves of God's existence. In your theory, VigilVirus, existence of human intelligence and especially humanity (or goodness, also love) are naturaly unlogical. But they exist! Nothing is on fully logical way. You are Spock or what? With logic you can negate everything, it is simple, but try to find new things with possible ways, don't destroy those known. Maybe if you'll be creative, you will find out what is difference between good and evil.

[VigilVirus]

(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)

A+B = B

::)

What do you mean?

The mistake in my proof is basically that I divided both sides by A-B which is 0 and we all know that we can't divide by 0. But the rest was right.

[Anathema]

Or A = 0. But A should be the same as B.

[Caid Ivik]

Mathematics won't show you solvement in philosophical problem. :-

[VigilVirus]

I wasn't trying to. We were just talking about how you can't disprove that 1+1=2, and I decided to bring it up even though it is flawed.

[emprworm]

(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)

A+B = B

nice one. I liked that.

but just in case you confused some people, I will correct it here:

(A+B)(A-B) = A^2 - B^2

B(A-B) = AB - B^2

Therefore it is incorrect to say AB-B^2 = A^2 - B^2

[emprworm]

ooohhh, Vigil, you gave me a great idea just now.

im starting a new thread. lol, you'll love it!

[VigilVirus]

Actually AB - BB = AA - BB is true, just plug in a 2 for example. The mistake is later:

(A+B)(A-B) = B(A-B) - correct because any number times 0 is 0, but when I divide by A-B that is where the mistake is since A-B=0

[emprworm]

(A+B)(A-B) = B(A-B) is correct if a and b=0, yes, but as an algebraic equation, it is incorrect.

[VigilVirus]

(A+B)(A-B) = B(A-B) is correct if a and b=0, yes, but as an algebraic equation, it is incorrect.

But at the beginning I said that A=B, and therefore A-B = 0

[emprworm]

yea u did. my bad.

[TMA_1]

logic is a variable. One person's logic makes complete sense to their life style and mode of thought. Without an absolute truth than there are many truths that logic can conform to. You can study this in any logic text book and in real life.

The reason why I combat your idea emprworm is not because your unintelligent or any mean reason, you are smart and a great guy in my book. You arent harsh and you dont usually beat around the bush. I attack it because your form of logic isnt another person's form of logic. A hedonist has just as much logic if thought out as an intelligent christian, muslim, jew, athiest, blah blah blah.

Logic to a hedonist is simple. If this is the only life lived, why hold yourself down to moral structures that get in the way of enjoying the only life we have? Anton LeVay is extremely intelligent and logical in his ideals with the Church of Satan. He is also an extreme hedonist and belives do what you want as long as it doesnt harm others.

[emprworm]

logic is a variable. One person's logic makes complete sense to their life style and mode of thought. Without an absolute truth than there are many truths that logic can conform to. You can study this in any logic text book and in real life.

but you are basing your reasoning upon the premise that logic is subjective, when it is not. It is objective. Logic does not bend its knee to the perception of a homosapic bipedal anthropod carbon-based temporal dependent lifeform. You can think the earth is flat all you want. But that doesn't make the earth flat. You may be sincere in thinking it. But you will be sincerely WRONG. These people that have their beliefs and logic might make sense to them like it makes sense to the Flat Earth Society that the earth is flat. But they are still WRONG.

The reason why I combat your idea emprworm is not because your unintelligent or any mean reason, you are smart and a great guy in my book. You arent harsh and you dont usually beat around the bush.

thanks. u too.

I attack it because your form of logic isnt another person's form of logic.

again, logic is not subjective. my form of logic is objective. any subjective form of logic is wrong, since logic is not subjective.

A hedonist has just as much logic if thought out as an intelligent christian, muslim, jew, athiest, blah blah blah.

This is impossible to say. Some atheists are well thought out. Some are not. I have heard secularists make statements like "there are no absolutes". Well we know that such a statement is EMPIRICALLY ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We can use objective logic to vehemently, and with absolute certainty declare such a person to be illogical and wrong, regardless of their sincerity. A person who uses sound logic, like Nema, might still reach a different conclusion than me (our differences in government, for example), but Nema is not going to make fundamental logical errors like a mis-informed secularist might make. Logic does not always give us a specific conclusion. Logic sometimes gives us a set of possible conclusions. Contradictory logic makes you empirically wrong- 100% of the time. Logic that leads to an unlikely conclusion is most likely wrong and irrational.

example:

Fred: "See that light in the sky?"

John: "Yes, I do. Perhaps its a plane or a satellite."

Jack: "OOOH A LIGHT IN THE SKY! THEREFORE WE ARE BEING VISITED BY ALIENS!! HELLLPPP!!"

I dont care what culture Jack came from, if he is living on this planet in the year 2002 or earlier, he is irrational. He COULD be right, but his logic is exceedingly poor. This poor logic is irrespective of culture. I dont care if he's a buddhist from northern mongolia. It is STILL bad logic.

Anton LeVay is extremely intelligent and logical in his ideals with the Church of Satan. He is also an extreme hedonist and belives do what you want as long as it doesnt harm others.

well LeVay has been dead for a while. i just dont feel like talking about him right this moment, perhaps later.

[TMA_1]

so if it is objective than there is one single truth. You yourself said there are no single truths. Your objective logical view would be different from another's logical viewpoint. You have to understand that even anton's followers have logic. Satan has logic in his own mind. Logic in itself in my opinion is not subjective. Its objective. Based on the bible. Others have "objective" opinions based on other beliefs. So you see, some beliefs or ways of thinking aquire different logic than others. Also what is this objective logic you talk about?

[emprworm]

i understand TMA that they have logic. So does the Flat Earth Society. You need to understand that one can have logic, and it can be BAD logic and make them empirically, objectively wrong. You cannot be relatively wrong about the earth being flat. You are either objectively wrong or objectively right.

Truth MUST be objective. Either there is supernatural existence or there is not. one or the other MUST be true, while the other false. This is simple logic. Any eastern spiritist that says otherwise is objectively 100% totally wrong. I dont care how many chants he's done or how many wheels he's spun, or how many Yin Yang balls he's frolicked with. he is WRONG. Objectively

[Acriku]

Logic that leads to an unlikely conclusion is most likely wrong and irrational.

example:

Fred: "See that light in the sky?"

John: "Yes, I do. Perhaps its a plane or a satellite."

Jack: "OOOH A LIGHT IN THE SKY! THEREFORE WE ARE BEING VISITED BY ALIENS!! HELLLPPP!!"

I dont care what culture Jack came from, if he is living on this planet in the year 2002 or earlier, he is irrational. He COULD be right, but his logic is exceedingly poor. This poor logic is irrespective of culture. I dont care if he's a buddhist from northern mongolia. It is STILL bad logic.

You say that's bad logic, and you seem to follow logic, yet you believe in God? We all know believing in God is irrational and illogical, because it's all coming from a book, so is this bad logic really bad?

[VigilVirus]

Sometimes logic and rationality is not the best way. I mean, rationally one could do anything, like justify a crime.