Quote:
Originally Posted by Orogun01
I agree, then you should rest your theory on rationalism. One can rationally and more importantly: mathematically, prove the existence of this and other dimensions.
|
I have yet to see, or hear, of a mathematical proof that the particular reality my senses are witnessing is not a simulation. This is new information to me. Do you have a link to it?
Quote:
|
Because value it's subjective, the value of a experience it's also subjective namely determined by perspective. The external factors will always be out of our control, is what I mean to say. The usefulness of something it's only a subjective value relating to it being a mean for an end. It's the the contrast of these two elements, the will of the individual and the events that surround him. The greater "good" that an event has on a subject it's ultimately determined by himself.
|
Actually, the usefulness of something as a means towards an ends is an objective value. We can make estimates of that usefulness; these estimates are subjectively determined.
Regardless, I have to meet anyone with a perfect control of their emotions, so external actions can and do affect their state. In order for external events not to affect someone's emotional state, they would have to not have any effect on that emotional state, even by causing thoughts that can change that emotional state.
Quote:
But following Utilitarianism we would have to measure the greater good of the majority with evil. It would also have to extend to other realities, which is probably the hardest point your philosophy would have to get across.
It would be better to held Utilitarianism as a personal ideal, instead of an absolute moral.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "measure the greater good of the majority with evil".
If it's what I think you mean, just about every case that apparently punishes some minority that I've seen, where the minority isn't some group like criminals where the punishment is being locked up to prevent them from harming others, resulted from a rather shallow analysis of the consequences.
And, this theory does extend to other realities, or at least other realities where it's actually possible to implement it.
edit:
----
For roachboy, when or if he comes back to the thread;
Relationships can exist independently of the language necessary to describe them. Electrons were a part of atoms before we had a name for them.
If that's true, then couldn't a set of logical relationships exist independently of an argument to describe them? Couldn't what an argument is attempting to describe be true even if the argument's symbolic representation of it is imperfect?