What is the Most Important Philosophical Question

a reply to: luthier

Here you go,

"Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the 'divine command theory'. The divine command theory is a cluster of related theories that state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.[14] William of Ockham, René Descartes and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted versions of this moral theory, according to Ralph Cudworth, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.[15] The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well."

Are you sure you know enough about it to use it in your arguement?

Can you answer me a question, I've asked you multiple and out haven't answered any. Please answer this one so we can stop arguing and start discussing.

Can you name something that was created that has no purpose or function? (Which isn't a symptom of cause and effect)

a reply to: fatkid

The divine command theory is a cluster of related theories that state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.

I would say that if it is happening then 'God has decreed that it is right'.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I have seen the thing behind the curtain.

Keep on thinking you are free if you want. I'm not here to change your mind.

a reply to: Wang Tang


Most important question:


What is my mission?

a reply to: Restricted

Your judgment of what you have seen if you want me to bear witness of it with you? Mind your tongue as my eyes cannot know what yours have seen as I was not there.

How you carry it is your personal responsibility not my own.

Obviously you want me to carry your bondage when it is what you have chosen to hold. Drop it of your own accord I am not the fool to carry it for you.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Restricted

Your judgment of what you have seen if you want me to bear witness of it with you? Mind your tongue as my eyes cannot know what yours have seen as I was not there.

How you carry it is your personal responsibility not my own.

Obviously you want me to carry your bondage when it is what you have chosen to hold. Drop it of your own accord I am not the fool to carry it for you.

Wow, you actually believe your own pseudointellectual bulls***.

It's "Taps" for you.

a reply to: Restricted

Grow a pear and see how peachy it gets.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I can lean both way on that,

I could say that in most cases, for man I'm not 100% sure, I think sometimes, possibly, God will let man do what man does - your choice to do what is right and good means nothing if you can do no wrong.....

a reply to: Wang Tang

The most important philosophical question is Universal, How did we come to be?

That Big Bang theory has always been thrown out there as being the way the Universe began, but...What if we caused The Big Bang from another dimension, then it becomes, How did that other dimension become a reality?

Then we have to wonder how many more dimensions could there be?

We have to question the reality and decide if we are a holographic projection from a Black Hole.

In essence, the most important philosophical question is, What came first? The chicken or the egg?

a reply to: Wang Tang

What is life and why are we here?

or

Why am I here?

a reply to: doubleE211

Chicken and egg are just a label so that one and others can identify them on experience... like point at a picture of an apple and an actual apple; the picture is the label of the namesake in the hand... yet it is a fruit, yet not a fruit it just is a phenomena of contact. But for communication sake it exists... how it exists to the individual? Still an apple if the label and form is accepted as such... yet personal bias in a duality of illusion that all that they project on the apple is a real experience. Real to them eh? Gives them that sense of self real or imagined seems to matter not as self esteem goes; others esteem? You're fool... but wait not everyone thinks so... spend enough time with anyone and at some point they will. Only because of that selfhood that one selishly rolls around on going look at me isn't my self absorbtion sexy? and like a sponge validation no matter the behavior involved to get it, but that acceptance will re-inforce that behavior to continue... the more desparate a percieved self gets, then of course a conglomerate forms as a percieved self, that must act or be some way in order for acceptance to follow.

What if someone says hey; no self... so running around expecting and assuming that ths will illicit this that will give rise to that in each other, is a manipulation in the programming and habits that a "self" and others have...

wtf right? Exactly. If human I do not suggest the chicken, the egg eh well it goes cross species in many forms...

Joking aside; which came first... both chicken and egg are labels, the chicken is the potiential of the egg and nothing more, the egg is not a chicken just a potiential chicken, a future possibility to form into that; that is already a chicken.

Yet neither inherently exist as labels or anything else we ascribe to it... we as humanity have conspired against all other life, matter and energy in given name to form.

It is a stupidity when not communicating to do such a thing. Why? How many times do you tell an apple it is an apple? Are you or the apple on sight going to forget the name it was given if not thought?

Haha no it will still be what it is as it arises... so why think about it? Won't change it unless disguised and called something else, whether that an art or deception? Depends on the observer.

The most important philosophical question should be "who am i"?

a reply to: Wang Tang

The etymology of philosophy is 'the love for wisdom'.

This can only come through spiritual striving, hence in my view, the most important question should lead to within, in order to contemplate and ultimately see the false in the real.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I can lean both way on that,

I could say that in most cases, for man I'm not 100% sure, I think sometimes, possibly, God will let man do what man does - your choice to do what is right and good means nothing if you can do no wrong.....

The assumption is that there is someone inside controlling actions. What is happening is what is happening - there is no one 'in there' choosing.
There is no god allowing man to do certain stuff and disallowing other stuff - there is just what is happening.

To be or Not to be...

Not to be!

originally posted by: Specimen
To be or Not to be...

Not to be!

Are you or are you not?
You are but you are not a thing - there are no things - there is simply what is.

a reply to: earthling42

Who indeed? It's more like two meat sacks getting together sharing the viral load of the conceptual they take or mistake to be real. Best to nod and move along... but I like the way all that unseen looks and wanna make contact with you... yeah but if our mental attachment to concepts and make belief can't allow each other the freedom of such shackles... whats the point?

The monkey dance to make more monkeys? Because instinctual drive said unnngh! Because I can't take being alone with my conceptual viral load of nonsense I take to be a self, when it really doesn't exist? But yet I'll manipulate thrash about and control you just to be accepted... roll out the welcome mat why don't you... oh you mean a smile and or a hello?

What is the point of such things when there are ideas of hierachies and inequalities because some havent grown up to say I've plans and goals and I will carry them out regardless of your influence. Because it is my life not yours and the only thing you may get to possess in all of life? Time, you will always have your time; yet you are always graced by anothers... so don't flip the script on that unless; you like being alone attached to ones own viral load of rot.

Anyway life goes on... attached or not.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Specimen
To be or Not to be...

Not to be!

Are you or are you not?
You are but you are not a thing - there are no things - there is simply what is.

Yes or no could suffice?

a reply to: Specimen

seeing how both of those are extremes unless agreed upon... maybe?

a reply to: Wang Tang

The most important philosophical question…

I'm guessing it was Aristotle who first came up with the idea to create an article of trade value;
the concept of money so to make an item one would trade for another item...
something that two trading fellows will consider an even trade...

"I will feed your goats for one season, if your goats will clean up my overgrown garden."
Both parties think that the other party is getting the better deal...

The answer to your question in my mind would be;
How do I maintain a neutral footing when I encounter someone who wants to make a trade with me?
Do I allow him to take advantage of me? Do I allow myself to take advantage of him?

How do I become neutral, neither good nor bad, but equal?