Reviews for MyPhilosophicalQuestion1

[RP207]

About the argument...

...there is no implication in the argument that because we are made of the same stuff we must be the essentialy the same. Also the term 'same' is misleading since we have to make a distinction between same as of 'the same kind' and same as in 'one entity'.

In the first case we already are the same as we're made of atoms, just like all living and non-living matter and there is no difference if you add energy (except increasing the kinds of 'stuff' we're 'the same' with).

In the second case, there is a simple way to prove we're not essentialy the same entity. I can move my hand by willing it to move, but I can't make another person move in the same way (this argument is disputable though, I realize but that's for a looong discusion so sorry if it's not that convincing :P)

Of the people replying to this this argument intrigued me:
''I also do not believe that our lives are merely to survive. I believe that to be pure nonsense. There is far more to living than surviving, and history is filled with untold BILLIONS of people that have but their needs aside for their friends, family, and total strangers. There are many who have sacrificed their lives, posessions, and status for others, or even for nothing other than the sake of right and wrong. That is FAR from being focused on survival.''

While I don't dispute the line of reasoning I like to provide an alternative to it. Take two societies, one composed of very self-centered individuals and the other of selfless ones. If you had them compete, the selfless society is more likely to be more economically effective (to say the least) due to the fact, cooperation is more likely when you trust others. And you're going to trust someone interested in your well being more, than someone interested in just his/her own well being. Thus if we had human communities of selfish people, they would be at an 'evolutionary' disadvantage towards the selfess communities and would possibly be integrated or destroyed by them. What I'm trying to argue here is that self-sacrifice might actually be a group survival instinct (as opposed to self-preservation instinct) and this could be the reason why self-sacrifice is praised by human societies: to motivate individuals for self-sacrifice in order to help preserve the group.

PS. about the flash: I find it nice, though the graphics and animation could use more work, the music was quite beautiful though

Aydin-Jewelz123 responds:

Very interesting ideas and its great to see that so many people have views and are up for debating about this stuff :D

The next one is going to be based on morality and I will go into the foundations of it and how it has developed by society etc. but keep it on a brief level so that people can debate with their own views.

I'm glad you enjoyed the music :)

[Kenmasters45]

It is a start

Lets say we are all made out of the same stuff. That the matter and energy at the start of the big bang made everything that is so we are all basically the same components merely organized differently. From this you say "why do we allow others to suffer" and show a picture of a face. But my question is, why a human face? Why not bacteria, we are made of the same stuff as they are and they also come from the big bang. Should we not cause bacteria to suffer as well and not use soap? If you don't think bacteria suffer then is an insect of equal value as a man because they both feel? Should we lock up people for using Raid on roaches? Like others have said this is a non sequitor. It doesn't follow that just because we are made of the same stuff that we ought to treat each other the same. Ask instead why we "ought" to do things and see where your reasoning leads you.

I like that you are trying to think about such subjects though. Read some moral philosophers like Peter Singer when you get the chance. Peace

Aydin-Jewelz123 responds:

Ye very good moral debate you've got going there and I will be uploading my next video based on morality because I seemed to have sparked up a lot of talk about that so would be interesting to explore and find out how people feel about it. Your totally right with why did I have a picture of another person, because everything should be treated with equal measure.

I will delve into some moral philosophy books as soon as I can.

[Noobfacekillah]

Naive

It's the effect of DNA coding, in early history everyone had to fight for survival. Considering that an ever expanding human population has to live in a planet with limited resources unevenly distributed, Nationalism and Chauvinism is the way of the future.

Aydin-Jewelz123 responds:

Ye, I didn't mean to bring up the question about human behaviour and morality in the video and would agree with what you say apart from the last part because tbh who can know what the future will hold.

[Redbob86]

Well this question varies greatly...

From a purely mathematical standpoint I have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang is illogical and probably did not happen. The angle at which energy and matter drift from the explosion had to be a virtually unatainable level of accuracy in order for any single form of matter build-up to even be possible. At a billionth of any degree more, all the matter would have either collapsed inward on itself, or expanded infinitly outward.

But putting all of that aside, my personal, religious, and philsophical views all stress that we are NOT the same, and we are not supposed to be. Everyone is special, everyone is unique, and it is these differences that define ourselves as well as in relation to others. We all have our own unique purpose, our own destiny, our own skills, tallents, and gifts, even if we don't realize them. Even our weaknesses and faults have purpose and help shape us for who we are.

I, ofcourse, do not mean this to justify the suffering of anyone, far from it. I'm just saying that we are not the same. I believe God made each and every one of us special, and each one of us has our own mission in life, whether we realize it or not. And my experiences in life have only lead evidence to this fact that everyone is different. And even our faults and eccentricities have a place in life. If one is quick to anger, he may benefit someone by unknowingly with rightous fury against someone doing something wrong, helping that person realize this.

Our lives would be quite bland, meaningless, and uneventful if we were all the same.

I also do not believe that our lives are merely to survive. I believe that to be pure nonsense. There is far more to living than surviving, and history is filled with untold BILLIONS of people that have but their needs aside for their friends, family, and total strangers. There are many who have sacrificed their lives, posessions, and status for others, or even for nothing other than the sake of right and wrong. That is FAR from being focused on survival.

Aydin-Jewelz123 responds:

Ye a very rational argument you have there, I didn't manage to put my idea across that well so here is how I have described it to another person who responded to the video.

"after some thought I've come to the conclusion that we are not all the same on the level that we see one another but we are all rather than just 1 person, millions of atoms so when we see someone else, we represent them as 1 person whilst they are millions of molecules and on a molecular level, going even further the electron level, we are all made up of the same fundamental things just arranged differently and this arrangement and combination is what makes us distinct from what another, yet if we zoom out and see the universe as a whole, it is all the same thing, just with a variety of arrangements within it."

But ye I do agree with a lot of what you said too :)

[jamieguinn]

Philosophy/Religion

No offense, but your argument is pretty shabby. Not to be harsh, but it's a non-sequitur... it doesn't follow that just because, to borrow from Carl Sagan, "we" are all star stuff "we" all ought to get along.

However, I think you'd get a kick out of Buddhism. That's where my existential questions lead me.

Aydin-Jewelz123 responds:

Ye true mate, the proposition didn't follow on with the others so it's not correct even with the logic in place because it doesn't follow on from the rest. I just put it there as another question without realising that it brings up a whole debate about human morality, evolution, ignorance etc. So will make another flash regarding Morality, because I think that's another un-answered phenomenon.