14th May 1999 : Rick Street
LIFE, EXISTENCE, GENETICS, GOD, SOCIETY, MORALITY,
PROOF AND MATHEMATICS
Graham Dare (C96 page 6) - The Meanings Of Life: Your three possible meanings are less mutually exclusive than you seem to think. What you are forgetting is the possibility of alien invasion. These weapons that you assume to be always dangerous to the survival of humanity are in fact quite likely to eventually save us from a hostile non-human species. It is this that balances the dangers of weapons research leaving medical research to be an entirely beneficial area of human knowledge. Consequently, on balance the pursuit of knowledge is fundamental to protecting our species from extinction. What's more the spread of happiness is rather like the glue or oil or whatever that keeps things together and working properly, ‘cos things that jeopardise the survival of the species don't generally make large numbers of people happy.
Theo (C96 page 7) - Why Should There Be A Meaning To Life?: Why indeed? Graham seems to think so! Does this mean that Grahams life has meaning and yours doesn't? Or do you believe that each person’s life has its own meaning whereas Graham believes in a more universal meaning (or meanings)? And what if everyone looked inside themselves to find out their own personal meaning and wrote it down on a piece of paper and once revealed this piece of paper showed everyone’s personal meaning to be the same? Why should there be a meaning to life? But if there is then what does that imply?
Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Mike Nisbet, Theo & Stef Gula (C96 pages 8-11) - Existence: That is what you mean by the rather unintelligible phrase "the subject-object dichotomy" isn't it? Remind me never to read The Vocabulary of Philosophy by William Flemming or indeed Lewes' Biographical History Of Philosophy Volume IV ‘cos the latter has made a right pigs arse of explaining the ideas of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel and the former probably only quoted it verbatim cos he couldn't figure out what the hell the latter was on about. How you can call this a very neat summary, Mike, I'll never know. Personally I have no prior knowledge of any of these thinkers or their ideas so I rely entirely upon the quote for what follows, and what follows is my attempt to translate the quote into English. Please tell me if this interpretation is wrong.
Fichte - Subjective Idealism: The only thing that really exists is the mind (ie the subject). Everything else is merely perception within the mind (ie ideas hence idealism).
Schelling - Objective Idealism: The only thing that really exists is the totality of everything as a single entity. Any divisions we make of this totality (including our own individuality) are merely perceptions created by us. Viewed objectively everything is just ideas.
Hegel - Absolute Idealism: The only things that are real are the relationships between things that are only defined by the relationships themselves. Absolutely everything we consider to exist is all just ideas and the only reality is beyond our perception.
And according to Mike...
Bishop Berkeley - Idealism: Nothing really exists. Everything is just perception (ideas).
...as opposed to...
Anyone with any common sense - Realism: Stuff really exists.
Frank Walker (C96 pages 13&14) - Castrating Criminals: Who says that 500 years of removing criminal genes by hanging was ineffective? Obviously we still have criminals but who's to say how many more we might have if all those miscreants had been allowed to go forth and multiply. And you answered your own question about Australian crime rates. Most criminals deported to Australia died in their first couple of years and many thousands of law abiding citizens have emigrated to Australia since it stopped being used as a penal colony. I actually doubt that modern Australia's criminal heritage is significantly higher than anywhere else.
Personally I broadly agree that there isn't a criminal gene per se. However it seems obvious to me that some people are going to be genetically more predisposed to committing certain types of crimes than others. Any dog breeder will tell you that its not difficult to breed aggressiveness into a fighting dog or out of a lap dog. And although us humans are less influenced by genetics than dogs because of our more rational cerebral configuration, our animal instincts haven't been totally forsaken by any means.
But its not the genetics that’s really the issue. Its the upbringing! Even an adopted child is more likely to grow up to be a criminal if they are taught from an early age that life is just about looking after number one and breaking the rules is ok as long as you can get away with it.
Mark Griffin & Theo (C96 pages 16-18) - God’s Will: It is God’s will that man should be free to do as he pleases and suffer the consequences at God’s hand if he does wrong. Atrocities committed by humans in God’s name will probably be seen as atrocities by God and punished accordingly. Atrocities committed by God should not be seen as atrocities ‘cos we do not have the power to punish God. But what of atrocities committed by the state ? Should we not see them as atrocities because we lack the power to punish the state ?
Nigel Perks (C96 pages 23-25) - Modern Society: I pretty much agree with everything you say! However I do think that modern society has lost something. Many people attribute this to capitalism but I attribute this to education. Parents trust the state to educate their children but the state is not capable of doing this properly, therefore many people leave school with no relevant skills to exchange for the money that they need in order to enjoy the kind of lifestyle that they grow up to expect. In simpler cultures children learn directly from their parents or within extended families and as a result grow up much better equipped for adult life. I think that teaching children is too complex to be left to teachers. It is those who have and use relevant job skills that should be educating the next generation not people who have had an exclusively academic careers. All a teacher can really teach you... is how to be a teacher!
Fred Hobson (C96 page 32&33) - Morality and Law: These two things are quite distinct. In an ideal world laws would be agreed upon by democratic consensus of those expected to abide by them but this clearly isn't the case. Laws are forced upon us by people we'll never even meet and administered by people who are "just doing their job". If I were in your position I'd go for the closest thing to justice that was available to me. Just as a true sociopath forfeits his right to social privileges so an oppressive, unjust inquisition forfeits its right to honest responses. If I were to get mugged and I had the means to incapacitate my attacker I would harbour no guilt regarding the violence of my actions. Similarly if I were mugged by the legal system I would harbour no guilt regarding any dishonesty I might need to use in order to defend myself.
Gödel (C96 page 35) - Mathematical Proof Of God's Existence My Ar**!: Axiom 1 "A property is positive if and only if its negation is negative" is fine! Axiom 2 "A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property" is... shall we say... two of the more spherical parts of the male reproductive anatomy! For example, lets assume that intelligence is a positive property and a pre-requisite for success. Neither of which are true but that is unimportant for testing the logic. This would mean that according to axiom 2 success is therefore positive. Success is a property that necessarily contains a positive property ie. intelligence. However success may also contain ruthlessness which may be a negative property and cancel out any positivity conferred on success by intelligence.
Daniel J Berger (C96 page 36) - St Anselm: You may well believe St Anselm's ontological argument "God = perfection; existence is a necessary part of perfection; therefore God exists" to be the weakest of the classic formal arguments for God's existence but personally I believe it to be utter rubbish ! You may as well say "God exists therefore God exists QED". Its a totally circular argument that proves nothing whatsoever. In fact, why are we even discussing it !?
John Brink (C96 pages 36&37) - Proof: A good beginning broadly agreeing with me about Gödel's axiom 2 but let down later on by the implication that anyone can or should try to prove anything. Proof is the protection of a belief from question, by the logical association with less questionable beliefs. He who attempts proof is insecure in himself.
Stan Tenan (C96 page 37) - Does God Exist: Of course God exists! Like you so rightly say, Stan, the only question is What does the word "God" mean? Is he a fictional character in a book called The Bible? Is he a deliberately manufactured myth intended to control the population? Is he exactly what the Pope says he is? Is he exactly what Jesus said he is and if so can we ever find out exactly what Jesus said, so long after he said it? Will any two people ever agree on a definition? Probably not!
V. V. Raman (C96 page 37&38) - Mathematics and Religion: Nice one V.!
Theo (C96 page 40) - Mathematics: Discovered or Invented?: Mathematical theories (such as 2+2=4) get invented first and then some of these inventions are discovered to be true by rigorous testing. Of course nothing can ever be proved beyond ALL doubt but mathematics is a closed enough field to mean that the approximation of truth is reliable enough to be assumed to be actual truth. Mathematicians start to look stupid when they try to apply mathematics to things other than numbers.
The Entire PDG Readership: You can wake up now I've finished.
Rick Street