Quote:
Originally Posted by bungalow
Well then you're just a hopeless idealist and equally unqualified to comment on how our generals should be fighting this war. This fight is existential for the insurgency, not us, therefore we can never win. It's a simple as that.
Also, as an aside, was the American Revolution not a just war?
|
I never ever said I supported the Iraq war if that is what you are referring to. Most of these wars like the Vietnam War, Filipino-American War, etc. are all stupid and were a waste of time and men.
I think the American Revolution was just. It was an act of self-defense. While the British weren't attacking us and such, they did infringe on our right to life, and the government that ruled over us was leading us to destruction. War was rational.
Quote:
|
And the Vietnam war is not a bad example, considering the circumstances are more or less identical and even George Bush has admitted as such. Way to sidestep the larger point, though.
|
It is a bad example because you are asking me to defend wars I completely disagree with in the first place. I never said that the present war was just. I just criticized our tactics.
Quote:
|
Someone who has no intent of putting effort into anything can still discern right from wrong.
|
There is no defined right or wrong if there is no goal. What would be considered right or wrong in this situation?
Quote:
|
On the other hand, if you're saying happiness is derived from self than duh. Of course happiness is derived from chemical reactions in your brain. However, doing whatever makes you happy is not always ethical.
|
And what do you base your ethics on?
Quote:
|
One, you're denying that happiness can be derived from other philosophies which is certainly not true.
|
No, it isn't. That is why I was criticizing the
popular philosophies of this time aka. post-modernism where you are to sacrifice your life for your fellow man, where humans are viewed as the dust of the earth, and etc.
One can feel happy following religion if he wants to, but the question is whether
he is
truly happy. I bold "he" because it comes down to the issue of identity. Do you feel happier when you are yourself or when you act not on your own principles, but the principles of others? Do you even have a self? If one looks at the present, one would say that one is not chained to his past actions and "the self" does not exist. However, when he dies his whole life becomes the past and that is when "the self" can be realized and a character accurately formed. While man lives in the present he can only experience the chemical function of happiness. When man looks to the past he can realize who he can form the most accurate picture of his character and that is when he defines himself as truly happy or not. This comes down to what I underlined, "truly happy." Of course, I could post another paragraph about this and I will if you please, but I will spare my effort for something that I find we might have common ground on.
Quote:
|
wo, you're saying Rand's philosophy allows for happiness, which may or may not be true in some cases; personally I find it depressing.
|
Why? I mean, you saying it is depressing is not really refuting my point because I see no reasoning behind that statement.
Quote:
|
Three, you're saying that happiness is more important than what really is, therefor Rand's philosophy is better. That is pretty nihilistic thinking.
|
No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. I realize that what really
is, is the self. I realize that my life means something to myself. Your way of pursuing truth at the cost of the self is Nietzschian and we know what happened to him. He sacrificed his existence to the world. While you might say that he found some truth, I would say that he did not since he denied the first truth, the self.
The question comes down to whether man is to serve philosophy or philosophy to serve man. I cherish my existence and I will not sacrifice it.
Quote:
|
How are you defining beyond? You either made the most obvious statement ever or made an obviously false statement.
|
When I mean beyond I mean that was is not part of "the self" is part of the objective reality. It was meant to be obvious.
Quote:
|
How so? If morality is based on logic and some people think more logically than others than some people will derive different morality. It seems that your argument would support subjective morality, not go against it.
|
Morality is based on reason. People will derive different moralities, but because there is an objective morality one will always be better. The idea is to find the best. We may not find it, but at least find the best you can find because it leads to more happiness.
I don't support subjective morality because there is always a "right" way to do something.
Quote:
|
I'm not sure how to reply to this because I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from reading what I posted.
|
I will quote what you said:
Quote:
|
In my mind what I gain from reality is far more important and precious than anything I could get out of denying it for selfish goals.
|
When you say "what I gain from reality" you are concerned with your own interests first. That is selfishness. Then you go on to say that these selfish motives of yours are more important than anything you can get from your selfish goals (aka. selfish motives).