The nature of "individuality": Debating an article

[Dante B.]

I wrote this some months ago, and figured we could get a good debate out of it.

http://www.avantlabs.com/magmain.php?issueID=14&pageID=148

So, tear into me.

 

[gr81]

veyr interesting article Dante, I enjoyed reading it definately. I love some of the points you made man. good stuff. You have a very philisophical style of writing and teh references you make are intriuging.

 

[Jodi]

Excellent piece Dante

As I mentioned before, I love your correlation to the individual and the the guidance we seek.

Now, no more aveage Joe/Jane talk

 

[BUSTINOUT]

Good read. Thanks for posting it D.

 

[firestorm]

yea I expecially liked the spear in the eye thingy. or was it I can put a spear in your eye? NO wait,, I can see where I throw my spear? Oh I forget but it was neato.

 

[ponyboy]

Since you wanted a debate...good article, even though you misspelled altar in the Blind Eyed Insurgency paragraph.

I actually didn't agree with some of the theories in the first paragraph, but you made a good point of tying everything up at the end of the article. Are you a lawyer as well? You use a lot of words that most people wouldn't understand unless they had a dictionary handy.

I do believe that we are a product of who we choose to be, which I'm taking as my interpretation of the point of the article. Now, to take the debate up a step further:

There are theories that state that we are simply a shell...our bodies function on a basal level providing us with the ability to think and move (for the most part) through electric impulse and cell regeneration but there is no real reason for it. This is where the theory of the soul comes into play. We can account for our size and physical ability and makeup through our genetic traits, however our personality is something that has yet to be determined and is developed throughout our existence as mortal humans.

So where does this soul come from? As you state in the article, we are what we create ourselves to be. Do you not believe that our choices are influenced by our external environment as well and that accounts for development of many character traits? Or are you trying to make the point that we all SHOULD BE what we create ourselves to be and ignore outside influence towards our development. I for one believe that this is almost impossible, especially in adolescence.

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by ponyboy
Since you wanted a debate...good article, even though you misspelled altar in the Blind Eyed Insurgency paragraph.

Goddammit. It's always the stupid little mistakes that slip by unnoticed--probably because they're so small, we pay so little attention.

Are you a lawyer as well? You use a lot of words that most people wouldn't understand unless they had a dictionary handy.

No. I just know some words. Now if I could remember my name on a consistent basis......

So where does this soul come from? As you state in the article, we are what we create ourselves to be. Do you not believe that our choices are influenced by our external environment as well and that accounts for development of many character traits? Or are you trying to make the point that we all SHOULD BE what we create ourselves to be and ignore outside influence towards our development. I for one believe that this is almost impossible, especially in adolescence.

You can't "ignore" everything, however, you can choose to consider and accept that which you deem beneficial and proper.

Most people are definitely a "product" of their environment and upbringing. The question is---are all people this way. Is there something that remains in our control.

Does perception drive our subconscious process of thought? Most exist on a subconscious level, acting as a sponge rather than a filter.

The filter approach allows one to alter (or altar ) their field of vision; the sponge approach puts one at the mercy of everyone and everything around them. In some cases they are soaking in wisdom, even if by regurgitation. In most, they are sopping up shit.

 

[Dante B.]

Not to mention:

If anyone truly believed that outside influences were impossible to ignore, then why would they ever bother the attempt to convince someone of their (supposed) errors.

If your parents were racist, will you come out a racist? If so, is this true in all cases. If not, then why.

As for adolescents, is that what we are? Don't say, "But many of those original youthful perceptions stick," because I'll say:

Perhaps it's because we allow them to.


EDIT: Here's another article of a similar nature (in most respects).

http://www.avantlabs.com/magmain.php?issueID=15&pageID=171

It may (or may not) put everything in perspective. Perhaps it will convince everyone that I have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about, and it's just a wonderful joke.

 

[Eggs]

Enjoyable piece Dante. The English perhaps unnecessarily high-browed, but despite that stimulating. If a work is good then it should be made accesible to the masses so that it has a chance to affect them equally. If not then the the power remains in the hands of certain individuals able to grasp the meaning of your work. Such as only the Priests, etc being allowed to own bibles long ago. Haha, and that is only a reflection on distribution of knowledge... not a comparison of your work to Gods

Hrm, the question "Who am I" has rattled about in the minds of humans since the first was ability to cognitively construct such a question. Who can lay fault with that though, the question of who we are is of utmost importance to our worldview. However, I must argue that who we are is intimately involved in our origin. By that I do not merely refer to race or heredity, but the origin of everything. That is the first question one must ask. Of that of course there are two possible answers - There is a God, or we are a product of chance. I dont really feel like turning this into a religious argument though. From a secular standpoint however, who we are is a compilation of our genes and our experiences. And perhaps a bit of randomness that is inherent in all human beings. I completely agree that who we are is who we make ourselves. There are no doubt limitations inherent to everything we do, but usually these limitations are self induced rather than being genetic. That said then, our interaction with life is very indicative of "who I am." Its not a quality that I have to look for to others but one I can see in my day to day life. These generations inhabiting the earth today look to others to understand themselves, perhaps this is a one of the primary reasons that we no longer take responsibility for our actions. It is so much easier to say "Its not my fault" when you consist of nothing, when there is no base for fault to adhere to. Which most are today, a shade of what a human is, a mere ghost of aristotle. In comparing us to Aristotle we do him a disservice, for his understanding of the world used brick and stone in its construction. In ours we use sand and mud. They dont make them like they used to That is a hasty generalization of course, but in application to a majority of the human population it does stand.

I really havent added or taken from anything you've said, so I'll just stop there. It was a good article Dante

Oh, and by the way... if we damn the sophists to hell then we're going to have to do away with most everybody. Starting with Politicians

Ponyboy - I dont believe that our Soul has any responsibility in the development of our personality. As I said earlier, I do believe that our personalities come from genetics, interaction, and the randomness that is inherent in humans. At least that is my opinion as I grow older and see the similarities between my parents and I, and can trace occurences throughout my life that have shaped me.

Also, I think Dante was saying more that we shouldnt allow others to make us, not that we shouldnt be influenced by that around us. That is after all how we learn... through that interaction. So its seems his statement was more of a "How do you handle this interaction (whether divorce, or a pay raise, or whatever) with life" rather than that you should simply be an island unto yourself. The value that one gains from his article is that you can look at and respond to something however they wish. You can let something defeat you, or you can learn and grow from the experience and come back stronger/better equipped.

Or something like that

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
Enjoyable piece Dante. The English perhaps unnecessarily high-browed, but despite that stimulating. If a work is good then it should be made accesible to the masses so that it has a chance to affect them equally. If not then the the power remains in the hands of certain individuals able to grasp the meaning of your work.

I don't write with the intent of speaking to the masses. I think with images and emotions, and those cognitive crumbs drop into the cracks of my work.

I aim to please---myself. And if I did give a thought beyond myself, it would be to those "certain individuals." Some will see the emotions born from the images, being able to relate.

There is a God, or we are a product of chance. I dont really feel like turning this into a religious argument though. From a secular standpoint however, who we are is a compilation of our genes and our experiences. And perhaps a bit of randomness that is inherent in all human beings. I completely agree that who we are is who we make ourselves. There are no doubt limitations inherent to everything we do, but usually these limitations are self induced rather than being genetic. That said then, our interaction with life is very indicative of "who I am." Its not a quality that I have to look for to others but one I can see in my day to day life.

Yes, disregarding the origin of man, the fact remains:

We are here, and we have control over our existence. I am, by the way, an Atheist.

Oh, and by the way... if we damn the sophists to hell then we're going to have to do away with most everybody. Starting with Politicians

I'd be the next to go.

Ponyboy - I dont believe that our Soul has any responsibility in the development of our personality. As I said earlier, I do believe that our personalities come from genetics, interaction, and the randomness that is inherent in humans. At least that is my opinion as I grow older and see the similarities between my parents and I, and can trace occurences throughout my life that have shaped me.

Even with this supposed randomness, one can bring order to chaos. Two people may read the same book, yet they each walk away with a different view.

And so it is the same with life: It is the person that defines the impact and the relevance of an experience, not the experience that defines the person.

Also, I think Dante was saying more that we shouldnt allow others to make us, not that we shouldnt be influenced by that around us. That is after all how we learn... through that interaction. So its seems his statement was more of a "How do you handle this interaction (whether divorce, or a pay raise, or whatever) with life" rather than that you should simply be an island unto yourself. The value that one gains from his article is that you can look at and respond to something however they wish. You can let something defeat you, or you can learn and grow from the experience and come back stronger/better equipped.

Quite.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
I don't write with the intent of speaking to the masses. I think with images and emotions, and those cognitive crumbs drop into the cracks of my work.

I aim to please---myself. And if I did give a thought beyond myself, it would be to those "certain individuals." Some will see the emotions born from the images, being able to relate.

Okay, I can agree with that. I am an elitest personally. I was not suggesting that you should litter your work with rubbish that would spoil it, rather simply that many people will not be able to read it without a dictionary at the ready. On the other hand, you could be doing them a favor and expanding their vocabulary to a more acceptable state.

Yes, disregarding the origin of man, the fact remains:

We are here, and we have control over our existence. I am, by the way, an Atheist.

I gathered that. Probably also an Egoist in worldview? I thought that you were a nihilst at first. Of course you can be a reformed nihilist and perhaps rationally reason that one cannot be a true nihilist and still be alive without intellectually accepting the hypocrasy that there is no meaning to life but you still have a desire to go on... and in doing so you must create value out of which there inherently is none.

As Albert Camus stated: "There is only but one truly philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."

(My critics will probably know that I've used this quote before. I just like it that much )

Either way, athiest or theist, one must have faith in their beliefs as there is no specific proof that absolutely supports either.

I'd be the next to go.

Haha, so you think... However, I've been promised that position

Even with this supposed randomness, one can bring order to chaos. Two people may read the same book, yet they each walk away with a different view.

I'm not sure if that supports bringing order to chaos or of chaos itself. If there is only one book and one author who wrote the book with one meaning in mind, and two different meanings come out of it... then we are exemplifying chaos and not order. Or atleast to my mind it is so. However, if you have a different opinion of it then I would like to hear it.

And so it is the same with life: It is the person that defines the impact and the relevance of an experience, not the experience that defines the person.

Okay, in this I understand what you are saying more. Its a reletavistic point correct? One experience leads to a random impact in two people, yet these two people can make order of this randomness on a personal level.

Hence (as you stated in your argument) how from a battle lost one may conclude in defeat, or one may conclude in a lesson learned and gain value of it.

There is no doubt that to a large extent we are masters of our destiny (within reason of course). Which is why I enjoyed that goofy little book "Who moved my cheese" by Spencer Johnson. Cheesy though it was (lame pun intended), it makes a point that we all acknowledge but rarely ever put into practice.

Life is what we make of it.

 

[Dante B.]

I gathered that. Probably also an Egoist in worldview? I thought that you were a nihilst at first. Of course you can be a reformed nihilist and perhaps rationally reason that one cannot be a true nihilist and still be alive without intellectually accepting the hypocrasy that there is no meaning to life but you still have a desire to go on... and in doing so you must create value out of which there inherently is none.

I am a Danteist.

I still have yet to understand what hell it means.

Either way, athiest or theist, one must have faith in their beliefs as there is no specific proof that absolutely supports either.

Are all beliefs equal?

I'm not sure if that supports bringing order to chaos or of chaos itself. If there is only one book and one author who wrote the book with one meaning in mind, and two different meanings come out of it... then we are exemplifying chaos and not order. Or atleast to my mind it is so. However, if you have a different opinion of it then I would like to hear it.

No, I am speaking on the count of how each individual lets an experience impact them, for better or worse. The "experience," alone, doesn't shape them, for if it did they would both walk away with the same conclusion.

One experience leads to a random impact in two people, yet these two people can make order of this randomness on a personal level.

Almost.

Explain:

How is it a random impact.

Hence (as you stated in your argument) how from a battle lost one may conclude in defeat, or one may conclude in a lesson learned and gain value of it.

Certainly.

Life is what we make of it.

More or less

Too bad it doesn't offer a money-back guarantee.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
I am a Danteist.

I still have yet to understand what hell it means.

Hey, I dont either, but thats probably a good thing.

Are all beliefs equal?

Loaded question? In the arena of proof I'd have to say yes. Without ample proof for any one belief the rest are still plausible. As far as beliefs go though, I try to narrow mine down through what I can physically interact with and that which I can produce a logical argument to support. Not necessarily a deductive argument, but at least inductive.

No, I am speaking on the count of how each individual lets an experience impact them, for better or worse. The "experience," alone, doesn't shape them, for if it did they would both walk away with the same conclusion.

Misunderstood you there at the beginning, think that was straightened out later on though.

Almost.

Explain:

How is it a random impact.

Its not truly random. However, I view it as random that an author can write a book with a certain meaning to it, and that meaning is not necessarily what will be the meaning that its readers derive from it. A million people can read a book and all get something slightly different from it.

Too bad it doesn't offer a money-back guarantee.

Those that create themselves never need worry about that money-back guarantee

 

[Arnold]

I am almost inclined to go read this article...maybe tomorrow.

 

[Eggs]

Uh oh Prince, you read the first you might be inclined to read the rest.

Then we'd have to accuse you of being edjamacated or something.

In Danteology at least!

 

[Dante B.]

Loaded question? In the arena of proof I'd have to say yes. Without ample proof for any one belief the rest are still plausible. As far as beliefs go though, I try to narrow mine down through what I can physically interact with and that which I can produce a logical argument to support. Not necessarily a deductive argument, but at least inductive.

What is ample proof.

Is ample proof possible. To what extent can one dismiss another belief.

Tesosterone is a steroid.

Creatine is not.

If someone said, "Creatine is a steroid," is that merely a belief.

Its not truly random. However, I view it as random that an author can write a book with a certain meaning to it, and that meaning is not necessarily what will be the meaning that its readers derive from it. A million people can read a book and all get something slightly different from it.

Definitely. However, I don't view "random" to be an appropriate word in this situation.

Those that create themselves never need worry about that money-back guarantee

Indeed. But it never hurts to ask.

Joking.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
What is ample proof.

Is ample proof possible. To what extent can one dismiss another belief.

Tesosterone is a steroid.

Creatine is not.

If someone said, "Creatine is a steroid," is that merely a belief.

No, its not merely a belief. However, our religious affiliations are. Unless you can prove to me as conclusively that there is no God as you can that Creatine is not a steroid.

Definitely. However, I don't view "random" to be an appropriate word in this situation.

I dont either, I have to admit I was a bit hesitant in writing it.

Indeed. But it never hurts to ask.

Joking.

True... I wonder if we could just get a straight out grant for being so damn cool though.

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
In Danteology at least!

One-thousand retards strong, at this point.

I don't believe half the things I say, but I certainly don't mind if everyone else does.

 

[Eggs]

Indeed, Dictator Dante

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
No, its not merely a belief. However, our religious affiliations are. Unless you can prove to me as conclusively that there is no God as you can that Creatine is not a steroid.

We can argue this on another thread, if you wish (won't be consistent with my responses, but I'll get around to them).

A Christian God? Whose God. It is up to the person making the claims to show evidence.

In my eyes, even if *a* being we can call God existed, it wouldn't be of any particular importance to me. Even without the supposed existence of a God, one can make sense of the world around them, knowing what is, and is not moral and proper (can debate this one here, if you wish).

Thus, aside from my argument (why God doesn't exist, which I can get into), I don't have any practical reason to believe in a god.

If I were to believe in a god, it wouldn't be in the Christian sense, or any religious sense of belief.

 

[Dante B.]

BTW----thanks for the wonderful discussion, everyone.

Apart from my home (company's) board, it's hard to find a good non bodybuilding-related discussion on the fitness forums. Nice to see that people here care about something else other than lifting, drugs, and the size of their biceps.

 

[Eggs]

"Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not."

- Protagoras

We can argue this on another thread, if you wish (won't be consistent with my responses, but I'll get around to them).

Another day on that... I'm going to have to get some sleep before we do.

A Christian God? Whose God. It is up to the person making the claims to show evidence.

Oh, I was primarily interested in seeing the basis for your Athiesm. As stated though, I myself can prove Gods existence no more than another other man can, or have it disproved as such.

In my eyes, even if *a* being we can call God existed, it wouldn't be of any particular importance to me. Even without the supposed existence of a God, one can make sense of the world around them, knowing what is, and is not moral and proper (can debate this one here, if you wish).

If you wish to debate ethics here then I am willing. What is the basis for your ethics? I've always been sceptical of people basing their ethics in themselves, or in society. Growing up in the Fiji Islands it was not long past that the people were cannibals. Subjectively one cannot argue that ethics is reletive and yet complain when someone eats your father Either way pops is objectively getting eaten.

Thus, aside from my argument (why God doesn't exist, which I can get into), I don't have any practical reason to believe in a god.

You mean because he isnt the hand that feeds us? Perhaps, perhaps not. But we are impractical creatures if anything Dante, are we not. We have fancies that wish to know how we came to be, how the Universe was created and so forth. Which is hard on me, because I've only ever seen life come from life, and I have never seen an object appear out of thin air. So evololving from nothing and the universe appearing like a twinky in front of a fat man, to me takes as much faith if not more so than believing in a God.

If I were to believe in a god, it wouldn't be in the Christian sense, or any religious sense of belief.

Wouldnt the acknowledgement of a God be a religious sense any way you look at it? You need not perform a certain religious activity to understand that there is a God. That only takes accepting that there is one. Or in your case not accepting that there is one, which is a religious belief in either case.

Which is how Danteism began.

"God is Dead... and we have killed him."

Was that Nietzsche?

 

[Eggs]

Thanks for your thoughts Dante, it has been nice to have a discussion that extends past our bodies. The mind is a tool that is easily overlooked and underused. Speaking of which, I need to put mine back in its cage for the night.

Take care.

 

[Dante B.]

Same here. Well, actually, I need to get around to some other chores.

Will get back to all of this tomorrow

Ethics---it is not based on myself, or on "society." But, that will be for the morrow.

 

[Eggs]

Ahh, chores. I wonder if Aristotle had chores

 

[Dante B.]

BTW-----we can have our religious debate on this thread. Why not. It's my thread and my article, right? Right.

Anyone is free to comment on the article, or question me on it, even after I get into the religious and ethical debate (after all, this is relevant in the overall scheme of things).

Take care for now.

Dante---better than God, who doesn't exist. Does that make me better than nothing?

 

[Dante B.]

Okay, briefly touching on the following (as I didn't get any sleep, and my mind is dead):

You mean because he isnt the hand that feeds us? Perhaps, perhaps not. But we are impractical creatures if anything Dante, are we not. We have fancies that wish to know how we came to be, how the Universe was created and so forth. Which is hard on me, because I've only ever seen life come from life, and I have never seen an object appear out of thin air. So evololving from nothing and the universe appearing like a twinky in front of a fat man, to me takes as much faith if not more so than believing in a God.

The question is, is this "faith" based on observation and logic, or on merely a hope.

And again, what "God," are you speaking of. I can almost understand the belief in a god, but creating the Christian God (or whatever God of any religion) goes far beyond the mere pondering of how we came to be.

As I said, not all beliefs are equal, not even in terms of "faith."

Wouldnt the acknowledgement of a God be a religious sense any way you look at it? You need not perform a certain religious activity to understand that there is a God. That only takes accepting that there is one. Or in your case not accepting that there is one, which is a religious belief in either case.

No. Saying, "after looking at the world, and the structure given to it, I believe there must have been a creator, a god," is far different than creating an entire religion with laws supposedly handed down to us by "God."

My view:

Nothing can come from nothing. Given that everything came from some original source, God was set as architect of existence.

But if nothing existed, was He conscious of nothing, save himself? How can consciousness rest apart from existence? What was He conscious of, if he existed, but nothing else did?

If he always existed, then so did existence. Which is to say, existence always was.

On ethics:

There is cause and effect. If we wish to achieve a certain result, we have to act by certain means.

Ethics do not rest in existence itself, but rather in human experience and desires. Thus they are at once both subjective and objective. Subjective, in the sense that there is no true right or wrong, apart from a context.

Objective, in the sense that if we wish to achieve certain goals as a society, we have to operate by those means that will allow us to achieve our goals.

For example, Communism isn't immoral or moral on its own. It is immoral, in a context, if one assumes that this system can actually lead us hold the material wealth of a Capitalistic system, without acknowledging what essential feature of Capitalism makes this possible.

We can surely rape and murder each other, but it will not be without consequence if we desire to live life in a more ordered fashion. Nothing had to be the way it is. But we choose to progress as such, and so long as we choose to live our lives (as a society) in a particular way, then we have to acknowledge that which is conducive to our ends, and that which is inimical.

That is the short of it. I can expand upon any of this, as you see necessary

 

[ponyboy]

Originally posted by Dante B.

There is cause and effect.

This is my theory on God. I do not believe as many do about creation, etc...I am a pure scientific based person. Don't get me started on the Bible, etc.

However, we cannot deny that the universe was created, either through the Big Bang or any other theory.

My belief is that there is an ultimate cause to everything that has put us to where we are today. Something caused the universe to explode billions of years ago. This cause created a chain of events that eventually over time because what we have today. Something caused the first single celled protozoa to combine together...something caused your parents to fall in love and have sex and fertilize an egg. Some of this is created by environment and circumstance, however when you go all the way back there is only one ultimate cause to everything.

This ultimate cause is what we think of as God. People have had to put a face and story behind it because the concept is far too staggering for rational thought and it is easier for people to interpret things if it is put on whatever level they can handle believing. All religions basically preach "be good, and you will be rewarded" either in this life or the next.

However, that brings up another question. Is the theory of good and evil also up to interpretation? Your point about communism helps to bring that up. To a communist, killing children and women for the good of the state is acceptable. Does that make them evil or simply good workers? It all depends on perspective.

 

[Dante B.]

It is not a matter of perspective, but rather what one thinks they can accomplish by those means.

The "good of the state," was hardly (and is hardly ever) the good of the society.

And "be good, and you will be rewarded," is hardly the essential tie that binds all religions together. Putting a face and a name to this ultimate cause is far more than a simple means for the average person to understand the concept.

 

[Eggs]

I think if Einstein saw the consequences of him bringing relativity to light he would have locked himself in a cellar and thrown away a key.

Either way. I dont really have much time right now as have to get to work.

The question is... if everything is relative, then there is no good and evil, at all. One cannot subjectively say that there is, because then the other person will simply state that there is not. Therefore if a drunk driver hits your car and kills your family, you can point at him and say "You're wrong" all you want. But he wasnt, because his experiences and beliefs tell him that he isnt.

There is a difference in saying that existence always was and the universe always was. A difference in saying "something existed" and the elemental table, etc as we know it existed.

Pony - The big bang is an affect, not a cause. However, you seem much more willing to believe in a "cause" than in a God. Pray tell, what exactly is the difference?

As to perspective... no, killing such as that is always wrong. If not you believe there are no inherent qualities to being a human. Therefore there are no redeeming aspects to a human, and there is no common bond that makes us human other than the fact that we are shaped in a similar fashion. If that is the case then if you believe that right and wrong depends upon society then you run up against a similar wall. For instance, there are many societies within a society. If you compare the value system of life from a gang to that of upper class Eastern liberal, you are going to find a difference. Whose should we follow?

Anyways, my time is out... gotta get going. Talk to you guys later, but its been good reading your posts.

A Indian guru a few years back once was asked by a college kid "What about Hitler, was he evil?" to which he stated "Hitler? No no... he was not evil, he was just silly."

I would like to think that in that persons life there will be someone silly enough to toss him in a gas chamber as well so he can see this sillyness first hand.