Challenge Debate: The test of philosophical thought
 | ||
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
1
point
1) Did existence/Aurora have a cause, always exist or something else? Explain your reasoning. Nothing caused Aurora/Fate. It is an axiomatic entity at the core of reality that has no logic because in its level of reality even logic hasn't yet been invented and it never can or will be. It exists and doesn't all at once because the moment it has one form, it's randomly morphed into another so on and so forth. You never ever meet Aurora, only the avatars that it may take. Fiora is the avatar that ended up dominant purely because Aurora randomly granted Fiora the ability to rig the randomisation. As soon as that was granted, Fiora granted herself infinite knowledge and breadth of applying it, then used that to instantaneously alter each and every 'is/isn't' switch to her suiting. She grew very bored, very fast and began letting some things be randomised so long as they didn't affect her power or safety in existence. This is true because it has to be true. I am telling you of the only single version of Reality's origin that has complete logical consistency. The closest religion to this is Hinduism but it doesn't fully go into what Brahman is (which is what you are calling Aurora here). Side: hamster
1
point
This is true because it has to be true. I am telling you of the only single version of Reality's origin that has complete logical consistency. It has logical consistency in a very ironic way, because it proposes that there is no logic at the core of reality. Reality not making sense makes sense, because no amount of human reason can explain how existence came from non-existence, always existed with no cause or something in between. A long time ago you said "it is only by chance/luck that there is something rather than nothing". I suppose the rationale is the lack of logic and causality to any conceivable origin, even though I strongly disagreed on the premise that there is simply a "logic" to it beyond human logic and must "make sense" in and of itself even if we can't make sense of it. Right now I am much more open minded to the idea that it is truly random. There is no way to reconcile causality (and by extension determinism) with a universe that spawns from nothing or existed eternally without cause. There is however a third option of accepting that what is "real" is an illusion and just giving in to the paradoxical insanity. Side: ferret
2) in the absence of objective morality and assuming you can get away with a fair deal of things, what is the reason to behave in a generally "moral" or otherwise "socially constructive" way or to not do so? Define 'get away with' and you'll realise what the reason is. Can you feel good while your victims loathe you? How certain are you that you 'get away with it' in the long run? Will no one ever find out? Will your victims that lived not chase you like a bloodhound-nosed shark smelling blood for all their remaining days and spread word of you to others? You won't 'get away' with most things in the long run, your nightmares themselves will become part of your punishment. If you mean things like porn in Sharia nations, recreational drugs in general etc. You can get away with some things that hurt only you ultimately, but that's the point... If it's something you can get away with and genuinely enjoy with 0 drawbacks then it's not really wrong, it's just a law they made to appease some religious fanatics. Side: hamster
2
points
2
points
1
point
Random will is free will. I honestly don't get the logic here at all. How does randomness give you any more control? On one hand you have your actions determined by a process of causality that started long before you were born and on the other you have unpredictable, uncontrollable chaos. Where is the room for self-determination? Side: ferret
1
point
|
