torstai 10. tammikuuta 2013

Meaning of life

To discuss about it. This question is itself an answer to it. Question that revolves through times, and from generation to generation - is an answer, not a question.

If you say biology as an answer, then by all means, be an animal. I'd rather aim at something higher.

If you say the question is meaningless, and continue to say everyone gives meaning to their lives; you're asserting your own view about meaning of life.

If you say the question is meaningless, and leave it at that, then by all means don't be a human, but an empty shell, a wanderer astray from the road. I'd rather be more than that.

sunnuntai 2. joulukuuta 2012

Who is the master

Anarchism works only if there is a one person in the world. With more than two, you have an emergence of power, an abstract master.

By anarchism I simply mean the freedom from upper governance. By power I mean the potential to change the world, and in this case the power is more like an instrument. A very abstract instrument. We always have an idealogy of somekind, and in the end this is the thing that drives us. Ideology is born when two or more people make a bond with eachother on basis of somekind of an idea, which they came upon using rational discourse.

Changing ideas, and forming them always require an interlocutor. We have to take into an account that reading a book also fits this description. Therefore a one person doesn't have an ideology, and is free. There is no abstract master, and there is no power.

perjantai 31. elokuuta 2012

Well how about...

I'll just write generally, and behold this as my second blog, but in english? Lets do that. As I am at work, taking care of pets, and studying my brains out, I'm not exactly capable of writing here. It's nice to blog on how you're not capable of blogging, while blogging. My existential view is to live your life as a contradiction, since reality is a contradiction, atleast in our phenomenologicality.

torstai 2. elokuuta 2012

What can be synthesized?

I actually found writing this blog really hard thing to do. Why? Because trying to fit two contradictory isn't something I would call easy. I have lot to do, and so little time, but this is a challenge that has all my intrigue. I will try to continue on the "deontology and utilitarianism" synthesis. I did consider adding emotionalism, but that actually isn't in my opinion a correct theory or view. Emotionalism is more like an explanation, or trying to understand humans.

torstai 26. huhtikuuta 2012

Synthesis project: Deontology and Consequentialism

Putting these together seem inevitable, since they are both too extreme in practice. If we are talking about deontology, it becomes next to impossible in practice. If a murderer asks you about his next victims whereabouts, do you lie? And the extreme situation for consequentialism would be allowing gladiator battles, since the overall pleasure would outweigh the suffering of the gladiators.

There are situations where you lean towards deontology and situations where you lean towards consequentialism. What if we make the synthesis situationwise? The theory itself won't have problems with situation X and Y, since it will adopt to these situations? The problem with consequentialism and deontology are these situations, and lets start with consequentialism:

It's inevitable that someone will die in the current going of things, the only thing you can change is that will X (x<y) die or Y (y>x) amount of humans. All of them are in the situation, and can't leave the situation before it is over. The most used is the train example: There are five humans on the track where you are going, and one on the right track. The brakes won't be able to stop the train in time, and either the five die or the one dies. Will you turn the train to kill the one, or stay on the track killing the one?

Now lets see the argument for deontology:

It's not inevitable that y (y>x) people die in situation, if you can stop it by killing innocent life of x. Most used example is the traffic accident. There are five injured people who will die if they don't get the organ transplantation. There are five different failures of organs in these five people. So if the doctor were to kill the one innocent man on the hospital, he would be able to save these five.

These are not of course definitive arguments for their side, but are pretty compelling arguments to make someone doubt their position. Hence the synthesis would be required.

keskiviikko 25. huhtikuuta 2012

This new blogspot of mine will be dedicated to english speaking viewers. Synthesis of philosophy will be about my synthesis of the late- and new philosophy. It's a project of making oxymorons of philosophy.