Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Priest, Candidate

Scott, is there anything you can tell us about the book? Obviously you've already stated your dislike for spoilers, but still, any thoughts on the focus of the book? Any hints as to what we'll be seeing?

If I may ask one specific question, any chance of seeing that ancient Nonman city that you mentioned? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I just submitted the revised manuscript yesterday, so I still feel too close to the work to offer anything resembling a reliable opinion of the quality of the work. It's wonderfully demented, I can tell you that much, and may very well be banned in public schools in the US - but then that's not necessarily saying much. My girlfriend contemplated making me sleep on the coach after she read it... 'Who thinks these things!'

My gut tells me people will be blown away, but then my gut told me that people would despise TDTCB!

How's that for a wishy-washy non-answer! Sorry, Priest. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Priest, Candidate

Lol

by the way, if you just submitted the revised manuscript, that doesn't that mean the release will be later than third week of May?

About what you said about it being banned, it makes it sound a bit as if we're talking about horror, like the book will gross people out. Is that correctly interpreted? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I AM late on delivering the book, there's no doubt about that (my submission deadline was September 30th!). I had 15 years to write TDTCB, and I simply had no clue as to how long it took to write a book when I signed subsequent multi-book contracts. Book writin' learned me real good this year I tell you (I've literally only taken one day off since mid-July!).

At the same time, I absolutely refused to compromise on the quality of the book (I'd never forgive myself otherwise). I'm just lucky that the people at Penguin, particularly my editor, Barbara Berson, are as flexible and forgiving as they are. In publishing parlance, they're 'crashing' the book, which is to say, reshuffling the deck to make sure my cards come out on top. I feel very fortunate.

I can't understate how crucial I think this is. I pretty much have no 'power media' support for either the UK or the US releases, so I needed TWP to come out as early as possible - largely because I'm hoping/thinking it'll generate some web buzz. We'll see...

I'm only half-joking about the banned thing. First, there's the way I've sexualized the old good/evil dichotomy. But secondly, TWP is where the religious themes really come the fore. Don't worry, I steer clear of preaching - one needs to know just WHAT they believe to do that, and I assuredly don't. But I pick away at the big mysteries, and some people are so insecure about their beliefs that they need to continually attack others just to prove the depth of their conviction.

As though believing things really, really hard, ever made anything true. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Just out of curiosity, what is your religious bent? I get the feel from the books that you would be an atheist, maybe agnostic. I'm personally an atheist, but at the same time I love reading about religions and religious conflict. I think its because at their deepest everyone wants to believe. It seems to me that having the certainty, or true belief in a god would be one of the most blissful sensations in the world. You are safe and taken care of. I think that is where religion stems from: human fear. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm an agnostic myself, and I tend to believe that most atheists would jump ship if they saw how far down the rabbit-hole goes. Part of the reason I was late with TWP was that I took the spring of 2003 out to write a short sci-fi psychothriller that had been gnawing at me for several years, the idea being to follow the hole all the way down - to horrify people intellectually as well as emotionally. Science implies far more than the non-existence of God (and it does imply that, though it doesn't 'prove' it). People like to think that science chased religious notions of purpose and agency out of the world, leaving us as the sole preserves of meaning and choice, but the fact is that we're PART of that world, and now that science is making the neuroscientific inroads it is (mark me, in ten years time neuroscience will eclipse genetics as the social 'hot-button' issue), it's looking more and more obvious that we are no exception, that we're the last remnants of the fantasy world inhabited by our ancestors.

As far as I know, I actually have an article on this topic coming out in The Journal of Consciousness Studies some time this year. Creepy, creepy stuff. All I can say is that there's simply HAS to be something more (without being able to say what that 'something' is) if we're to be anything other than complex biomechanisms deluded into thinking purpose, morality, love, and so on, are anything but delusions.

There's a lot more than belief in God on the line. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Mithfânion, Didact

Part of the reason I was late with TWP was that I took the spring of 2003 out to write a short sci-fi psychothriller that had been gnawing at me for several years, the idea being to follow the hole all the way down - to horrify people intellectually as well as emotionally.

You have a penchant for going off on tangents <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->

What happened to the story? Will it come out?

now that science is making the neuroscientific inroads it is (mark me, in ten years time neuroscience will eclipse genetics as the social 'hot-button' issue), it's looking more and more obvious that we are no exception, that we're the last remnants of the fantasy world inhabited by our ancestors

Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not really up to date with this stuff though I want to be, but what neuroscientific inroads do you refer to and why do you think it will become a major issue, topping even genetics?

All I can say is that there's simply HAS to be something more (without being able to say what that 'something' is) if we're to be anything other than complex biomechanisms deluded into thinking purpose, morality, love, and so on, are anything but delusions.

I can't follow the phrase, I do apologize. If there is no God or something else higher than us, what do you think that means? That love and morality are delusions? If so, why do these emotions require the presence of a higher being? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Tangents? What tangents? You know, that reminds me of the time that...

What can I say? I'M DONE THE BLOODY BOOK, and yet I simply can't stop writing! I know it might not seem like this, but I'm usually NOT the guy who empties rooms at parties...

The book is called Neuropath, and I have an 'almost complete' (this is where editors roll their eyes!) draft. I simply don't have the time to rework it. I have to complete TTT by this September 30th and I'm hellbent to do so...

Neuroscientific inroads? Where to start. There's the prospect of low-field MRI's, (think brain-scanning tricorders) which will allow anyone from governments to corporations to read our basic emotional states, and far more, as the mapping of brain-responses to various events continues apace. Their's the already troubling capacities of TMS - trans-cranial magnetic stimulation - which in the hands of people like Pirsinger at Laurentian university can induce any number of mystical experiences, from out of body to revelations from God. And that's just the beginning. Think truth-compelling machines and the like... The list goes on: for instance, what happens to free will when researchers can determine from brainscans what your choice will be BEFORE you even make it? For us, it feels like we just freely exercise our will, but neuroscience is revealing the neurophysiological precursors (which we have absolutely no awareness of), which determine that 'free exercise.' It gets creepier and creepier.

Regarding God. It's not so much that God makes things like purpose and morality possible, rather it's that he possesses the same general structure of these things, a structure (which philosophers call 'intentional') which scientific explanation dispells whereever it goes. It just happens that with neuroscience scientific explanation is now delving deep into us.

Consider ADHD. Just a few years ago, we attributed the inability to concentrate to CHARACTER - we blamed the kid for not paying attention. Now that we know the neurophysiology of the inability to concentrate, its been removed from the realm of character and been placed in the realm of disability - the kid can't help himself. Responsibility evaporates; it's not a matter of right or wrong anymore. The rub, however, is that EVERYTHING that we attribute to character is determined by our neurophysiology. In short order we'll start seeing things like 'Motivational Disorder' with its attendent neurophysiology, and we'll no longer be able to attribute laziness to character anymore.

To put the dilemma succinctly: Science, which is hands down the greatest instrument of discovery the human race has ever known, is telling us that character and agency are illusory. I don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me.

There simply has to be more; the question is how do you argue for that more... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Wil, Head Moderator

Wow view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Mithfânion, Didact

I have to complete TTT by this September 30th and I'm hellbent to do so...

Yes, let that one have first priority <!-- s:!: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" /><!-- s:!: -->

Thanks for the elucidation on Neuroscience, I find that very interesting. Funny how one can be so drawn to mythical Fantasy worlds that inspire otherness and escapism yet at the same time be so interested in the future developments of this world. Perhaps there's an obvious connection ( a desire to be anything but here? But that would be too harsh).

I see what you mean now on the issue of science unravelling character. But what did you mean earlier about atheists jumping ship if they knew how deep the rabbit-hole goes? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

&gt;But what did you mean earlier about atheists jumping ship if they knew how deep the rabbit-hole goes?

In my experience, most atheists arrive at their position through some kind of commitment to scientific methodology and its implications. Those commitments entail far more than the likely non-existence of God; it just depends on how far you follow them. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

My personal atheism arises from an inability to believ in anything higher. To me some kind of supernatural existence is illogical and makes no sense, and I think to believe in it because of the resulting implications if you don't is not really a belief, but a fearful claim to belief. I cannot make mayself believe without some kind of evidence showing it to be so.l view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

And I (almost) completely agree with you Jack. As Johnny Cochrane might say, truths that flatter rarely matter. People regularly choose the simplistic over the complex, the certain over the uncertain, and the flattering over the troubling.

The problem arises when you realize just what the 'evidence' you speak of implies. For instance, the are you willing to surrender your belief in free will (which grounds responsibility which grounds morality)? If so, then you're a nihilist. If not, then you're a 'there's-gotta-be-morist' like me. Free will, I'm afraid to say, is every bit as spooky as God from a thoroughgoing scientific perspective.

When it comes to the production of reliable truth-claims I'll be the first to admit that science is the only game in town. But that doesn't make it any less pernicious to all those things we cherish as 'human.' As a species, we really find ourselves in a pickle, knowledge-wise.

Get a load of this: the more we come to know, the more it seems that knowledge (which depends on 'right and wrong') is an illusion.

I think this is why fantasy is as compelling as it is: it gives us worlds that intrinsically MEAN something at a time when it's becoming more and more apparent that our world is meaningless.

People will argue against this, of course, but who are you going to bet on, traditionalists with their grandiose flatteries, philosophers with their endless circles of reason, or the guys whose methodology has made things like thermonuclear explosions and computers possible? Seems like a no-brainer to me... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Wil, Head Moderator

I must admit that this is all a new concept to me.

You've mentioned things off-handedly that I've never even considered.

I've never considered science as an "unraveling character".

Personally I am agnostic. It doesn’t make sense that there is nothing out there, but I just haven’t figured out what it is yet. It seems to me that if God really did want all of us to believe him and join his True Church (Whatever it may be) the skies would open and a loud, thundering voice would say "HELLO, HERE I AM".

I was raised LDS (Latter-Day Saint AKA Mormon), but many of the beliefs that were given to me were contradictory and just seemed wrong. Anyway, I love reading all this new information on a subject I've never carefully considered, and I encourage you to get all of your "writing need" out right here on the board. It's fascinating. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Shael, Commoner

Let me join in the fun. I think this topic is really interesting. Let me throw something out there.

I am a Christian, but i'd like to talk about atheism, because it is an interesting concept. If God does not exist then that means that science is the only thing that governs the universe. Because we live in the universe, our lives must be a product of science. If you've ever taken science in school, you'll realize that biology is really just a form of chemistry, which is a form of physics, which is math, which is all a bunch of numbers and variables.

That would mean life is really just a bunch of numbers. The interesting thing about this is that if we knew exactly how the universe began, then we would have all of the variables for how the universe works, and could predict the future exactly. Obviously this is impossible for us to do, but its just a fun little theory. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Hi, Shael! Welcome to the mess!

There's probably as many interpretations of what science is as there is of Christianity, but they pretty much all agree that science simply DESCRIBES the physical laws that govern the universe. Many of these descriptions, such as General Relativity, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Evolution, are immensely successful, and have provided the foundation for whole sciences.

The type of deterministic prediction of the future that you describe is most famously associated with Laplace, and has long since been abandoned - ever since the successes of quantum mechanics made it plain that randomness is essential to whatever it is that reality is.

But something to think about is that God, by definition, DOES know all the variables (quantum or otherwise), and as such possesses complete knowledge of the future. At the same time, God is also the creator of all those variables, a collection of which happen to constitute me. I've always taken heart in the fact that if there is a God, then he must have known exactly where I'd end up when he created me, so that by doubting his existence I'm just doing the very thing he created me to do! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Fade, Commoner

Quote: &quot;Wil&quot;:2yhtji26
It seems to me that if God really did want all of us to believe him and join his True Church (Whatever it may be) the skies would open and a loud, thundering voice would say "HELLO, HERE I AM".[/quote:2yhtji26] That may seem the solution, but even if God would do that, there would still be people who would refuse to believe in him, writing it off as a anomaly, or something else. And even if they believed he was God, some may still reject the God concept, or anything attached to it. I personal don't think it would be that easy.

Carry on the discussion. It's a relief it is not a flame war about religion. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

Yes, that is very similar to what is prophied in Revelation. Some people believe that when the Rapture occurs and all of the Christians are taken up to be with Christ that everyone left on Earth will still not believe, or they won't be able to. Also, at some point the Lamb (Christ) is supposed to return in His full glory. I'm at work, so I don't have m Bible with me at the moment. I haven't been through Revelation in a while, so i'm a little rusty. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I agree with Scott that numbers provide a model of reality, but they do not make up reality. He said it very well.

Scott, I don't think I see what you were saying about relinquising free will. I assume you mean that if science can predict neurologically what we are going to do then we actually make no choices but just follow through on action-reaction type behavior. That may be, but each of is genetically/biologically/raised in a way different enough to provide differing action-reaction chains. This is then what free will would be reduced to, and I think it quite possible.

You were also talking about responsibility and morality. You as an entity are responsible for your behavior, whether you can help it or not. We already see this in psychopaths, who are deranged and relaly cannot control themselves. However, that does not keep them out of jail. Morality also does not have to be based on a supernatural power. The Natural Rights philosophists came up with a model of rights, admittedly based on their western cultural and therefore religious beliefs. Morality can be described as the mean (as in average) behavior of a society. We have different moral standards than did ages, even decades past. I think it is possible to have a cohesive society with sound moral footing without any kind of supernatural power involved.

(by the way, I am LOVING this discussion!) view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm loving it as well (though I have this damn synopsis of TDTCB to finish)! The tactic you're taking is a tried and true one in the free-will/determinism debate: simply redefining 'free will' so that it accords with the mechanistic descriptions of science. 'Compatibilism,' they call it.

I have a number of problems with this strategy. It's clever because it forces the determinist (which I'm not, BTW, I just don't see any convincing arguments against them) into a classification debate, which are notoriously treacherous, and make the issue unresolvable.

Given the regresses of endless argumentation that lurk about every corner in this debate, I simply opt for a commonsense approach and ask the question, How can your position make sense of choice, given that the brain is simply a vastly complicated mechanism, without at the same time glossing over or erasing the obvious, commonsense antagonism between these two concepts (choice and mechanism)? Anyone can redefine; the challenge is to redefine in a manner that either perserves or explains the force of the original (if troubling) insight, which is in this case is the incompatibility of mechanism and choice.

Think of ADHD and the problem of character dilemma again. In practice, we no longer hold kids with ADHD responsible for their inattention, because now we know they have no choice - they're victims of their neurophysiology. We deal with them in an entirely different way. If we redefine choice to be compatible with neurophysiological determination, then the suggestion is we shouldn't treat them any differently at all, and once again hold them accountable for their inattention. And why not, when they 'choose' (in the redefined sense) not to pay attention. Obviously, this is absurd.

Do you see the pickle? Kellhus stands astride this problem.

Once again, I DO believe we have choice, I just have no bloody idea as to how we can honestly argue for it. All I have is faith. Against all odds, it sometimes seems... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Shael, Commoner

Think of ADHD and the problem of character dilemma again. In practice, we no longer hold kids with ADHD responsible for their inattention, because now we know they have no choice - they're victims of their neurophysiology.


I think there is an issue with how far can take this idea. I think humans are made up of both mechanism and choice.

If humans acted on instinct and mechanics alone then we couldn't hold anyone responsible for anything, since everyone's action are predefined and we have no control over our lives.

We can't be made up of just choice either. I think everyone acts instinctively in many ways. If we were an organism without mechanism then our choices would be infinite. Our minds would be forced to think about every thing we do, questioning every motion our body makes. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by banditski, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:259wscf6
Once again, I DO believe we have choice, I just have no bloody idea as to how we can honestly argue for it. All I have is faith. Against all odds, it sometimes seems...[/quote:259wscf6]

this may seem (and indeed it is) the backdoor cop-out of someone long away from scholastic debates, but i think you hit the nail on the head here, scott.

i heard an argument a while ago - concerning physics, in this case, but i can extrapolate it to this discussion. it was simply that the human brain is not 'powerful' enough to understand the answers to the questions we are asking, if indeed we are asking the correct questions.

consider a duck. in this case a duck smarter than average, who wishes to understand how he can fly. he can debate (to himself, in his little bird-brain) about how flight works, and can come up with some theories. but he is (i think we would all agree) incapable of understanding the fluid dynamics associated with flight. not to mention all the levels of physics that fluid dynamics is based on.

not that i could understand them either if i was left to my own devices from a baby, so let's assume that we can try to explain it to him. you could sit him down in front of a chalk board for hours, talking in the universal language of mathematics, and he still wouldn't get it. where i might eventually.

but my point is that i think it's rather arrogant (and also a huge cop-out, as i've already stated) to think that the human brain is capable of understanding everything, even if it was spelled out for us in a language we could understand.

so scott's statement "I DO believe we have choice, I just have no bloody idea as to how we can honestly argue for it," makes perfect sense to me. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Fade, Commoner

Guest (Shael?) if you want to look into Revelations, you can use a online Bible also, if you want to look something up. Tip/reminder <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

Quote: &quot;banditski&quot;:1pkjsfwr
but my point is that i think it's rather arrogant (and also a huge cop-out, as i've already stated) to think that the human brain is capable of understanding everything, even if it was spelled out for us in a language we could understand.[/quote:1pkjsfwr] banditski for president! [img:1pkjsfwr]http&#58;//www&#46;hardwaregeeks&#46;com/board/images/smilies/7&#46;gif[/img:1pkjsfwr] view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by banditski, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Fade&quot;:2t8k2kb3
banditski for president! [img:2t8k2kb3]http&#58;//www&#46;hardwaregeeks&#46;com/board/images/smilies/7&#46;gif[/img:2t8k2kb3][/quote:2t8k2kb3]

prime minister okay with everyone?? <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

PM? Fine by me, so long as I get to be Pope!

And I agree with you Banditski. It's one of the reasons I'm so terrified of AI. Think of the ease with which Kellhus manipulates people. In a matter of a few decades we'll have CPU's with far, far more transistors than we have neurons, and working at the speed of light no less! We're already 'evolving' programs in artificial environments that produce better results than any human design, and with structures no one can understand... We live in a creepy world.

Which might be why I spend so much time in Earwa. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 16 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I still believe that evrything can be rationalized without the requirement of faith, however. Even the duch should theoretically be able to understand that there ARE principles behind flight, even if he himself is incapable of following the math. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 16 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

How about scientific rationalization? Don't you have to have FAITH in reason and observation (since grounding these in reason and observation would just be begging the question)?

But this question is rhetorical. There really seems to no way to escape some minimal form of faith: philosophy is littered with failed attempts to absolutely ground knowledge in first principles.

I guess the hard question (the one that torments me at night, anyway) would be this: What are your grounds for believing in morality and purpose?

Whatever those grounds are, they can't be scientific (which is why I bite the bullet and opt for faith). You might have faith that science will someday account for them, but from what we know so far, it seems more and more likely that science will simply explain them away. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 16 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by LooseCannon, Peralogue

Back to the AI discussion (Sorry, I am a terrible philosopher):
One of my teachers last semester gave us an interesting final lecture on the state of computer technology and where it is headed in the next hundred years. According to Moore's law integrated circuits will continue to double in efficiency every year. While some argue that this theory is no longer valid the fact of the matter is that when you think about how fast a computer processor is now and you start doubling that capability and then doubling it again and again and again you are talking about incredible advancements. By the end of the 21st century some of the things we've seen in movies like the Matrix and other cheesy sci-fi movies will be reality. Also, with all the advancements in nanotechnology processors will finally have the ability to transfer data at speeds that compliment them. I think it is also going to reduce prices on many technological devices by a considerable margin. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 17 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I remember rooting around on the web trying to find a crossword answer and stumbling across this crazy religion where the member(s) thought the sacred purpose of mankind wasn't to worship God but to MAKE him. He called it the 'Artilect' (I ended up writing a short story of the same name).

Anyway, the argument he used was almost identical to yours, LC. The upshot seemed to be that we were doomed to make God, whether we wanted to or not. Reminds me of Herbert's 'Ship' books...

There's a growing literature out there on something called the 'singularity,' which, if I remember correctly, has to do with the point at which our technological advances are so radical we simply cannot predict that anything we're presently familiar with (such as our humanity) will abide in any recognizable form. Supposedly it's just around the corner... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 17 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I think morality is as simple as looking around and saying what do I want out of life? When a collective group of people, or animals (which is all we really are) asks themselves this question, the average response is what determines morality. Honestly, that is all we do now, and theoretically that should be all that is needed. If a majority of people feel a certain way, then they will set a moral standard.

There may not be a rational definition of morality because morality is a construct of humanity. But simultaneously, no faith in anything other than the logic of common desire is required for this model to work.

The technology thing is actually quite frightening when you really think about it. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown