lukeprog's paradigm shifts (chronological)
Submitted by lukeprog on Sun, 06/17/2007 - 06:46
Tags:
- The Beatles are the best rock band ever -> The Beatles are the most overrated rock band ever1
- there are aesthetic absolutes -> there are no aesthetic absolutes
- art's aesthetic value is its most important quality -> art's effect on human flourishing is most important
- Christian worldview -> freethought/atheism
- religious sex-avoidance -> sex positive
- words reflect reality -> words are tools of communication, more like nuanced grunting than a reflection of things in the world
- there are moral absolutes -> there are no moral absolutes (but thankfully, progress)
- republican -> libertarian -> ideology-free politics
- we have free will -> we have no free will
- with a bit of research I can know what's true and what's best -> even with 100% objective thought and hard research, I cannot know much about anything
Author Comments:
1This merely symbolizes a broader shift in my appreciation for art, mostly in music and film, and mainly a result of reading A History of Rock Music, 1951-2000.
I'm a bit confused about your last pending paradigm shift. I thought this expression was applied in specific situations, since sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. How can whether or not the abstract concept of the ends justify the abstract concept of the means be a principle of your life?
Maybe that's true, too. To help you understand what I'm saying, you might say I'm considering Utilitarianism, for example.
Ah, I see, so what you really mean is maybe the ends of creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people justify whatever means are necessary to do so, and you've just condensed that statement. Interestingly, I feel similarly about utilitarianism as the general concept of the ends justfiying the means: that it's an interesting spin to use in thinking about individual situations, but it's not an overall concept one can live by.
What type of Utilitarianism are you considering?
On another note, do you, or anyone else, know if the Criterion Collecion version of famous movies are worth the higher price? Or, are they the movie equivalent of the Deluxe Edition of famous albums?
I speak of utilitarianism in a very vague sense; ethics is not a branch of philosophy I've spent much time with, yet.
Each disc of the Criterion Collection is different, of course. Often, the Criterion release is the only release of a particular film, and it's done in good quality. High-quality film release is more important than remastered CDs. Do the Led Zeppelin vinyls need remastering to sound great? No. Do the existing copies of Abel Gance's Napoleon need some work? Yes. And of course the extras are often quite good. Be sure to read the reviews for individual Criterion releases.
Do they justify the price? Personally, I don't re-watch films often enough to justify the purchase of any DVDs. I can get almost all of them for free via my statewide interlibrary loan system, anyway.
Most of the films that I plan to hunt down are in my library system too, but there are some, and most of which are the ones that really intrigue me, are not in the system. So, I have to buy them. I saw that 8 1/2 was for sale for 2-Disc Criterion or regular 1-Disc release, with the latter being half the price. I have seen 8 1/2 twice, but it was some years ago and I paid very little attention to what was going on, so, I wanted to buy it. One thing I remember is that it was very good, or very promising, but I dont think it warrants the extra $16+, to my recollection. And there are many others that are twice the price in Criterion mode....
If you want to read about Utilitarianism, I am sure that you have this knowledge already, but look into John Stuart Mill and his predecessor/teacher Jeremy? Bentham. Those two are a good source for the old style, but like many before and after, they failed to nail it down. James? Rachels has a better version of the morality. I believe it is Multiple Strategies Utilitarianism, but my memory is horrible.
Studying ethics (and axiology in general) is on my to-do list.
Netflix is way cheaper than buying DVDs not at your library.
Do you guys realise how lucky you are to have libraries like that? Is it a local library that you're talking about?
Our library has about 3 feet of shelf space dedicated to movies, and half of those are old aerobics videos.
Yes I do! That's my local library system, which has branches in towns of less than 3000 people.
what city do you live in?
north-central Minnesota. I worked for the ECRL library system for a while and visited the branches. Some of them are a single room in little towns, but they have access to the state-wide interlibrary loan system.
Yeah, I have a very big library system: Cincinnati. I read or heard somewhere that it is the oldest and/or biggest library system in the country. Most of the movies that I want are downtown though, so, I have to drive a whole 20 mins to get there. All together my library has just about every movie by every famous director: Bergman, Kurosawa...plus old aerobics videos.
Anybody know where this is?
ANGKOR WAT?
yes, it looks like it
Light Over Ancient Angkor
Thanks, guys!
Hey, I like your shifts!
You're developing in a good way, if I might say so ;-)
This made me laugh.
This is a pretty substantial point in theology - God doesn't just give you the answers, you have to find them yourself. It's an important life lesson.
lol
Are you being sarcastic? If not...
Yes, almost like he isn't there at all! And if he is, he doesn't help you anyway.
The invisible and non-existent look the same.
Obviously for those who openly mock religion this isn't going to have any meaning. Many religious people don't see it as God is 'forcing' you to believe but rather letting you find him yourself. Its called the gift of free will - everybody can choose to believe or not to. That's what I believe the magazine was about.
Oh, I know. I was a Christian for 21 years.
Sorry, I didn't intend to be mean. This ain't the best place to discuss the existence of gods, and mockery is never the best method.
But maybe you can try to understand for a moment. Imagine if a powerful majority of Christians controlled the government and much more in America, and made most of their decisions based on their belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and dictated his ancient morality to us.
You'd argue, you'd protest, you'd persuade, but on occasion you'd just resort to an exhausted (or humorous) mockery of those who pray to their invisible god.
Or, imagine if those who persist in spreading alien abduction conspiracy theories ran our government. Mockery would seem all to natural a response.
I just find that I can't get through so I just laugh at religion now, because religious people (not all, but most who have strong beliefs) just won't budge no matter how many arguments you present.
Jamool: Discovering things for yourself? What about Asbestos which killed hundreds of thousands because we didnt realise that it was harmful (at least originally), God just wanted to wait until we found out for ourselves. He waited for all those people to die just so we could find out for ourselves. Nice one God, pretty warped sense of things though.
Perhaps you could read some other sides of the argument though, some Bertrand Russell or perhaps even Richard Dawkins.
I'm not athiest, I'm not sure what created the universe, but there is no way a Judaeo-Christian higher being exists, the idea is ludicrous!
I don't exactly find the analogy. Why didn't God warn us about Asbestos? I don't know. There are warnings in the Bible about things that are bad for us (for example, pork in that time was very unhealthy and caused many deaths). I don't exactly claim to have the answers here.
I've read Dawkins and found it to be kind of like an atheist's bible. Honestly in the two books I've read of his I haven't really come across one argument that hasn't been discussed to death or just outright bad logic. I think he's a smart person but I think all he's doing is helping atheists to reaffirm their nonbelief, in the same way a fanatical preacher would only help those who already believe. Honestly comparing a religious upbringing to child abuse is pretty sickening IMO
Hmm...all right, but how can one find an entity which has never manifested itself to oneself, or to anyone else?
Aside, aren't debates on religion pointless, because having a debate means having rational arguments, but religion is based on faith, not reason. So you can't really argue about religion anyway?
I guess that's why we have the Bible and plenty of people who want to spread the word
Well...that doesn't answer my question. You can have plenty of people for just about any cause.
What I'm saying is that's the point of the Bible, so that people can find God. That's the purpose of it.
They found him, where is he?
So how does God manifest himself to you or to believers in general? Or say I read the Bible, or for that matter any religious book, and still don't find God...then? And what about people who believed in God, and then lost God?
Regarding the last point, I agree. I'm a determinist, and believe there is no free will. Imho, there are just so many things we can do, that it appears that we have free will, but in reality, because of one's genes and enviroment, we are conditioned, so that in a particular situation, one will have a particular response.
The evidence isn't here yet about free will. But I think of it this way: if a pulse is waiting at the edge of a neuron before two synapses, how on earth could we "choose" to make it jump to one instead of the other? By what even theoretical mechanism is that possible, given that everything arises from quantum phenomena? I can't imagine how there can be free will.
Yet, "living as if" we have free will may be important for human survival. It's easy to do. When I'm not thinking about philosophy, I live "as if" I am "making choices." And I still talk to people about changing their lives for the better, choosing such and such, etc.
But I suspect the illusion of free will is merely an epiphenomena of consciousness and human evolutionary development.
I agree, free will is integral to human nature and survival, atleast subconsciously, I feel I have free will.
I think these have been very positive changes! :)
However, I'd just like to know exactly what you mean when you say that art's aesthetic value is its least important quality, and also, what then is its most important quality?
Also, what moral progress would you be referring to?
Art's effects on human flourishing is more important than its artistic value. The Birth of a Nation's bad effects on humanity were more important than its good effects on film technique. I would rather set film back by 5 years than humanity back by 1 month.
Moral progress. I'm thinking of Nonzero, fading violence, changing minds, how the group of beings we feel morally obligated to has steadily grown from family to group to tribe to kingdom to race to species to fellow sentients...
Best site I discovered this month.
Wow, thanks a lot for the link! That one comes in very handy, as I was just planning to start studying ancient civilization!
With genetic engineering, could all our kids five generations from now be like these?
Jayshawn Augusto, basketball player
Sungha Jung, guitar player
Marc Yu, pianist
Kim Ung-Yong, genius
Akiane, painter
Jay Greenberg, composer
Adora, writer
and, you know these guys
I don't understand how you can have ideology-free politics? Even if politicians are neo-cons/libs or social democrats (as opposed to communists) they're entire platform is based on ideologies - ways of interpreting the world and the best solution to problems.
I suppose we have to find the difference between ideology and theory. To me, "theory" sounds scientific. I have never known a politician who is scientific about the way he interprets the political world and finds the best solutions for problems. That is why I call it ideology. I want an ideology-free, scientific approach to political decision-making.
But that might be impossible right now. I'm not sure anybody really knows what kind of political system will work best - especially in a rapidly changing world. Political systems are too complex. At least in physics you can limit the variables and test for causal relations. Politics is about as far from physics as you could possibly get.
I see what you're saying. That actually makes a ridiculous amount of sense. I'm reminded of some controversial policies the Netherlands government has put into place regarding drugs, prostitution & more. These were enacted after extensive studies were done that proved that legality was actually causing the most harm to drug users or sex workers, not the actual activity itself (which is still very risky). I think that's a good example of politicians studying a problem, and doing what is best for the people (even though it goes against centuries old moral norms).
But alas, this solution wouldn't work everywhere. For example, in nearby Sweden the drug penalties are more strict and they actually have a much lower rate of drug users. In the U.S.A., which also has strict laws, the rate is way higher than both these countries. It's as if you need to employ alternative approaches in different regions when dealing with what appears to be the exact same problem.
An ideology-free system would be ideal but surely unrealistic at this point - considering how little we know about humans. Still, it seems like the most sensible approach is to study social problems and come up with solutions that are based on sound evidence, not a moral panic to appease the masses.
It's rather an amazing thought, isn't it, that we could actually just test what actually works, and then just do that?
The research actually can be done, and in many cases has been done, but politics is indifferent to facts. For example, one couldn't hope for more data than the world bank study of 124 banking crises around the world, but of course ALL our politicians are proposing the very solutions warned against by the authors of the study.
The problem with politicians is that their primary concern is being in power. Doing what is right for the common good is barely a close second in terms of priorities. Anything that could be unpopular with voters is shunned (even if it is the best solution).
Most strategies addressing poverty, for example, are always about children, because poverty reduction is essentially charity for the poor - unpopular among many voters. There's a common perception among the public that poor children are 'deserving' of charity, whereas poor adults simply lack initiative and a hard working ethic. But make no mistake - the money is going to the parents, not the kids.
I personally cannot make heads or tails of financial matters and I found the link to be pretty confusing!Anyhow, thx for responding.
Yes, it's a problem of incentives. That is, of course, what caused the financial meltdown. Due to lax regulation, banks and loan officers had every incentive to give out loans that couldn't possibly be repaid. And of course, people taking out the loans had every incentive to take free money they knew they'd never pay back! Now it's all gone and the rest of us have to pay for it.
Representative democracy has perverse incentives for those in power. All their incentives are to do what is popular, what makes them look good - to get them re-elected. There are NO incentives to do what actually makes the world a better place. We could, for example, pay financial regulators in market-average index funds, such that they would have every incentive to keep the financial markets stable and prosperous. We could put it into the laws that the president gets his lifetime free health care plan revoked if X, Y, or Z. A system with bad incentives will produce bad results, no matter how good the PEOPLE you put into the systems are.
words reflect reality -> words are tools of communication, more like nuanced grunting than a reflection of things in the world
True, though philisophical propositions (which words are based on) do reflect reality as we perceive it. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes. It's hard to explain what I mean in just one sentence. This issue is a central point of a debate I'm currently having with a theist. A long way of saying what I'm trying to say is here.
Nice links, I now understand your points much more, thanks! :)