Attack of The Super Duper Big Picture

[The Last Conformist]

If this isn't a play on the word "matter" then I don't see what you're saying.

Let's recap my argumentation in this thread:

Mattering is a two-argument relation; something matters to someone. It should be patently obvious that plenty of things matter to plenty of people (unless you happen to be an apathetic solipsist, I suppose). Saying that something matters or does not matter objectively is meaningless. Thus your statement "nothing matters" is either obeservationally false, if it's meant to mean that nothing matters to anyone, or meaningless, if meant to say that nothing matters in the "super duper big picture".

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Hey Bozo, you know that song - Nothing Else Matters, by Metalica?

Well it's true, nothing else matters.

"Mattering" is always just a subjective opinion (though the religious may argue otherwise). All I can know in this lifetime is thru the experience of myself. I may not b able to make an inpact on the division rate among microorganisms on Zeptoon but that mattes not to be. I'm I was meant to make a difference there then I would have been born there, instead of here.

Humility can be attained by focusing on all the things we cannot do (control the weather or the score of a baseball game) and thinking "wow, I'm insiginificant", whereas I prefer to focus on the things I can do (like indirectly spurning you to start a meaningful(less) discussion on a meaningful(less) forum in cyberspace.

In 100 years we'll most likely all be dead so I figure we might as well spend our time happy and confident rather than worrying that 7 of Deep Space 9 may never be affected by our presence.

Narz you and some others seem to be under the impression that I particularly care, or am suffering somehow becuase of humanities lowly, insignificant status. Not at all. I dont mope around the house with a long face because the Horsehead Nebula doesnt know I exist Im just saying, oh by the way, maybe we should all get off of our high horses because all we really are is mold growing on a pebble. Have fun, fall in love, play the stockmarket, buy new shoes, whatever, its all good The 'Super Duper Big Picture' isnt in conflict with any of that.

@cgannon, nope, youre mistaken too. Morality isnt rendered obsolete because of the SDBP. As long as we're all here on this planet, regardless of whether or not we're less than insignificant on a cosmic scale, we need to function and work together and have some sort of social order. Morality, right and wrong, good and evil, all play a major part in that. Thats why what scares me isnt the SDBP at all, its moral relativism.

By the way, you guys who are up on all the isms and asms, whats the official name for this philosophy (Im sure its not Super Duper Big Picture )? I sincerely doubt Im the first one to stumble on it.

 

[punkbass2000]

Let's recap my argumentation in this thread:

Mattering is a two-argument relation; something matters to someone. It should be patently obvious that plenty of things matter to plenty of people (unless you happen to be an apathetic solipsist, I suppose). Saying that something matters or does not matter objectively is meaningless. Thus your statement "nothing matters" is either obeservationally false, if it's meant to mean that nothing matters to anyone, or meaningless, if meant to say that nothing matters in the "super duper big picture".

Oh. Yeah, I'm going for the second one.

 

[superisis]

I don't see how you relate "Truth" to "Morality" here

What I mean is:

If you don't believe in something all knowing then it is all relative. If god aint your boss, you are your own boss. If you're not responcible to God then you're only responcible to yourself. I'm not saying that people of faith are more moral than atheists. Being moral is about having standards (whether you set them or if your god set them is irrelevant) and following them.

All I say is that we have no great way of knowing anything. All the knowlege of an atheist is based on his assumption that he exists. Then he's basically trusting to his 5 senses.

Let me give you an example. Have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"?

Well Nash thought he saw those three individuals; he thought they existed even though they didn't. Well, how did he find out they didn't exist? He was told by all they other people he thought existed. That was his view. How did we, the audience, find out that they didn't exist? We got the objective/all knowing/god view. We were shown sceens were Nash argued with himself, etc. But lets you are stranded on one island. You see two other individuals on this island, but both of them deny the existance of the other... So you ask yourself, are there three people on this island, or two or just one. You will never know. Infact noone will ever no, because noone's way of knowing is better than anyone elses. Thus without the belief that there is someone/thing that knows it all, all you have is relative truth.

same with morals: Noone says that one set of morals are lesser than another. Noone can claim that, without referral to god. Perhaps a collective set of morals, but then ofcourse that will change over time, so one could not say that anyone is immoral.

Ex. an atheist could not claim that Hitler was immoral. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to the atheist's set of morals. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to the atheist's society's set of morals. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to Hitler's society's set of morals. But he couldn't claim that Hitler was immoral to Hitler's set of morals or to an general set of morals (since, to an atheist, such a set of morals doesn't exist).

Johan

 

[Narz]

Narz you and some others seem to be under the impression that I particularly care, or am suffering somehow becuase of humanities lowly, insignificant status. Not at all. I dont mope around the house with a long face because the Horsehead Nebula doesnt know I exist Im just saying, oh by the way, maybe we should all get off of our high horses because all we really are is mold growing on a pebble. Have fun, fall in love, play the stockmarket, buy new shoes, whatever, its all good The 'Super Duper Big Picture' isnt in conflict with any of that.

Who knows Bozo, maybe you're wrong. Maybe you ARE essential to the Horsehead Nebulla. Maybe your signifigance is greater than you imagine.

There is no way that a person's significant or insignificance can be proven or disproven, or even a person's range of influence. Therefore I choose to believe I'm pretty powerful. It makes me feel good about myself to think this way (and keeps me open for opportunities to excersise my power).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Feeling powerful is good, but if you start getting carried away with yourself, look at this image. Those are galaxies, not stars. Youre powerful on an invisible little dust mote, congratulations

 

[a space oddity]

[...]By the way, you guys who are up on all the isms and asms, whats the official name for this philosophy (Im sure its not Super Duper Big Picture )? I sincerely doubt Im the first one to stumble on it.

Well, as someone said before in this thread, it does sound like a Buddhist view to me. Know what you are and be cool with it. Don't attach any 'value' to the objects and processes that are, just let them be and know how they effect you and how you effect others.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Buddhist, so I might very well be completely wrong. I do find some of its philosophy very interesting though, and I am currently trying learn more about it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Oh yeah of course, Buddhism. Its very similar, but since its devoid of mysticism, I was thinking thered be a Western version.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

The only person more important than me in my life is my Girlfriend.

I would take a nuke to save her.

 

[Narz]

Feeling powerful is good, but if you start getting carried away with yourself, look at this image. Those are galaxies, not stars. Youre powerful on an invisible little dust mote, congratulations

And yet the question still remains, who cares?

I can be powerful in all the ways I want to be powerful. I won't exactally be heartbroken if, upon death, the elevator man to the next world informs me that my presence made little difference outside of the Milky Way.

I matter to those I effect, that's good enough for me.

 

[Narz]

The only person more important than me in my life is my Girlfriend.

I would take a nuke to save her.

That's sweet.

Hopefully you won't have to.

 

[Perfection]

Too late! Sucker!

Zuh?

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

That's sweet.

Hopefully you won't have to.

Thanks. But i'd make sure that my girlfriend is out of the immediate area before the nuke was even there.

 

[cgannon64]

Aside from that being beyond my power, it's blatantly a false dichotomy.

No, it's not.

How can you justify any laws without declaring an inherent value of certain things or beings?

 

[Narz]

No, it's not.

How can you justify any laws without declaring an inherent value of certain things or beings?

The universe doesn't need to justify it's laws. They just are. Since when does gravity or the existance of light and darkness need reasons?

 

[cgannon64]

Putting people in jail for the rest of their lives requires reasons.

How can you justify that except by saying that the human life has an objective value?

 

[superisis]

It is not the universe or physics that puts people in jail for the rest of their lives. Those actions are carried out by societies/individuals, who justify it through their personal subjective morals/values.

 

[Bootstoots]

Putting people in jail for the rest of their lives requires reasons.

How can you justify that except by saying that the human life has an objective value?

Human life is considered very important by other humans. Therefore, murderers are put in jail for the rest of their life for taking away that which is considered very important by a group of other humans (the state, in this case). There doesn't have to be anything objective about it.

 

[cgannon64]

It is not the universe or physics that puts people in jail for the rest of their lives. Those actions are carried out by societies/individuals, who justify it through their personal subjective morals/values.

You would take away someone's liberty permanently for a subjective value? You're a cold dude.

Human life is considered very important by other humans. Therefore, murderers are put in jail for the rest of their life for taking away that which is considered very important by a group of other humans (the state, in this case). There doesn't have to be anything objective about it.

Without an objective value attached, prison seems like the most unjust of crimes.

 

[BasketCase]

Since human beings don't agree on what constitutes an objective value, I would say ALL values are subjective.

Something that is valuable, has its value because humans say it does. You gotta start somewhere.