TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Poor Sisyphus (on morality & freedom)

Poor Sisyphus (on morality & freedom)

this was started in msn between Renegade and myself

basically, i wanted to start a topic 'against' the perpetuation of the human race and the efforts to sustain life at any cost, but i heard it's been done to death and i figured everyone's already sick of the topic, but it did get us into an intersting discussion, and we both thought it'd probably be best to open the discussion here

the background: Camus' views on Sisyphus, taken from the last chapter of his book "The myth of Sisyphus"

Camus asks, if we realise objectively that life is meaningless, why do we carry on?
and he answers, no matter how hard and shitty life can be, even the breifest moments of pleasure make it all worth while.


i disagree, because i doubt Sisyphus can look at his life objectively, nor any other man in that position.

i believe we are genetically programmed to always find some joy in life as a protection mechanism, therefor, we will never be able to reach the relavant level of objectivity to 'measuring' our lives.

Sisyphus will never admit his unhappiness, will never give up, will never commit suicide, and will never ask to be put out of his misery, because he denies that misery.



now, let's assume the myth is a bit different: the gods have decided to test the morality of man. they have put you and only you in the position to decide whether Sisyphus will have to endure the torment they have decreed upon him.

you are now in the position to put Sisyphus out of his supposed misery.

What do you do?

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you stating that objectively, all human life is meaningless regardless of every single consideration? Or are you arguing that in a state of true "objectivity" Sisyphus's life is meaningless, despite his denials, and thus the "moral" route would be to put him out of his misery?

no one has free will. does that answer your question?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, and I cannot really afford to get wound up in a time consuming argument (there's a couple of other threads that I really should get back to before getting involved in yet another thread), but I think that your claim is that "life is meaningless, so why don't we kill ourselves?".
If that's a correct interpretation of your point, then I would say that even though life, or human existence, in itself is meaningless (there's no one to whom it would make a difference if there had never been life), the continued life of the individual, once it has begun, is not meaningless. E.g. it would cause my friends and family great anguish if I was to die tomorrow, and since I value these people and their continued happiness, it follows that I myself am not indifferent to whether my life continues or not. And that's the rational reason for not killing yourself: Ending your life does not imply that it never took place.
Does that contribute to the discussion, in a meaningful way?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you stating that objectively, all human life is meaningless regardless of every single consideration? Or are you arguing that in a state of true "objectivity" Sisyphus's life is meaningless, despite his denials, and thus the "moral" route would be to put him out of his misery?

you are thinking in the right direction, but what's with the focus on 'meaning'?

it's not the 'moral' route because his life is meaningless, it's the 'moral' route because it's too painful.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange no one has free will. does that answer your question?

we covered free will last month, search this forum.
and no, it doesnt answer my question.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, and I cannot really afford to get wound up in a time consuming argument (there's a couple of other threads that I really should get back to before getting involved in yet another thread), but I think that your claim is that "life is meaningless, so why don't we kill ourselves?". If that's a correct interpretation of your point, then I would say that even though life, or human existence, in itself is meaningless (there's no one to whom it would make a difference if there had never been life), the continued life of the individual, once it has begun, is not meaningless. E.g. it would cause my friends and family great anguish if I was to die tomorrow, and since I value these people and their continued happiness, it follows that I myself am not indifferent to whether my life continues or not. And that's the rational reason for not killing yourself: Ending your life does not imply that it never took place. Does that contribute to the discussion, in a meaningful way?

you're getting ahead of ourselves and skipping the morality question altogether, but in any case, i'm talking about the continued existence of the human kind, not that of the individual.

Eh, for you to take on that view, you first have to conclude that your life really is meaningless. But how exactly do you define a meaning or a purpose? In general I guess you could say that all is meaningless, since there's no ultimate reason for anything in this world to exist, there are only minor reasons and purposes for things which are on the overall not important by themselves. So ultimately it comes down to the question of whether you like or dislike such a meaningless existance. However, there's a catch, and that's that you can move from existance into non-existance, but it's impossible to go vice-versa. So since, ultimately, we aren't omnipotent and therefore can't say that there isn't a greater meaning for all of us, we should not cut short our only possibility of finding one. Even if there is no meaning at all, as long as there is a chance that we may start liking our meaningless existance, it is unwise to end it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Eh, for you to take on that view, you first have to conclude that your life really is meaningless. But how exactly do you define a meaning or a purpose? In general I guess you could say that all is meaningless, since there's no ultimate reason for anything in this world to exist, there are only minor reasons and purposes for things which are on the overall not important by themselves. So ultimately it comes down to the question of whether you like or dislike such a meaningless existance. However, there's a catch, and that's that you can move from existance into non-existance, but it's impossible to go vice-versa. So since, ultimately, we aren't omnipotent and therefore can't say that there isn't a greater meaning for all of us, we should not cut short our only possibility of finding one. Even if there is no meaning at all, as long as there is a chance that we may start liking our meaningless existance, it is unwise to end it.

i'm not the one who said life is meaningless.
enjoyment is as worthy a purpose as any as far as i'm concerned.

more specifically, enjoyment is my purpose in life.


you're all barking up the wrong tree

Re: Poor Sisyphus (on morality & freedom)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Camus asks, if we realise objectively that life is meaningless, why do we carry on? and he answers, no matter how hard and shitty life can be, even the breifest moments of pleasure make it all worth while.

camus is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i disagree, because i doubt Sisyphus can look at his life objectively, nor any other man in that position. i believe we are genetically programmed to always find some joy in life as a protection mechanism, therefor, we will never be able to reach the relavant level of objectivity to 'measuring' our lives.

u are right.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T now, let's assume the myth is a bit different: the gods have decided to test the morality of man. they have put you and only you in the position to decide whether Sisyphus will have to endure the torment they have decreed upon him. you are now in the position to put Sisyphus out of his supposed misery. What do you do?

that would depend upon whether there is anything to be gained and what it would cost. if there is no costs to me to end his misery, and nothing to gain but the 'end of his misery', then i'd end his misery. i think we're hardwired to do that. does this anwer your question?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you are thinking in the right direction, but what's with the focus on 'meaning'? it's not the 'moral' route because his life is meaningless, it's the 'moral' route because it's too painful.

Fine, replace the word "meaningless" with the word "painful" and then please answer my question .

Wouldn't be asking if someone has the "right" to "kill" the "living dead" start this with having to define:

Morality, rights, what killin is and how it differs from death, and what exactly the role of a human is? Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved? If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power.

When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God.

Personally, I would say, based off of Army of Darkness, an organic mechanism going through the processes of controlled entropy over time would be living dead by its INability to "enjoy" life and thus a boomstick is a moral action to let them RIP.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Fine, replace the word "meaningless" with the word "painful" and then please answer my question .

yes to both questions

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Wouldn't be asking if someone has the "right" to "kill" the "living dead" start this with having to define: Morality, rights, what killin is and how it differs from death, and what exactly the role of a human is? Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved? If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power. When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God. Personally, I would say, based off of Army of Darkness, an organic mechanism going through the processes of controlled entropy over time would be living dead by its INability to "enjoy" life and thus a boomstick is a moral action to let them RIP.

So how many beers have you had before typing this?

I think drinking is wrong.

I just dont get how you can have a discussion about a God giving you a moral issue to decide about a person in a netherworld being "tormented" and not define any of the concepts. Makes for rather long winded and circular discussions if everyone has a different idea of what they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Morality,

that's basically the point of discussion, seeing everyone's different viewpoints on morality in effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax rights,

there's no need to define right, because it's obvious from the modified myth that you have been given the right.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax what killin is and how it differs from death,

untill the need arises i think we can avoid defining that, i don't see an obvious difference in relation to the question.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax and what exactly the role of a human is?

similiar to my responce about morality, just to a lesser extent. the reason we are not defining it is because we can question everything, and if we will, it's doubtful that we will ever reach the topic.
case in point: define a human's role, define a human, define a definition.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved?

to each his own view, un-'defineable'.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power.

appearently an 'omnipotent' but not omniscient being.
THE God is irrelavant.
A God is not necessarily moral imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God.

the being that gave it to you isn't THE God.

p.s
by limiting your God into working under the constraint of morality, you are negating his omnipotency on an even bigger level than the familiar logical paradoxes do.

Hehe well, the omnipotence issue can be laid to rest kind of easily.

The whole "can God make a rock so big he cant lift it?" question can be answered with both yes or no and they both work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

descartes among others have already gone through all that.

PS Die

The omnipotence question is kinda interesting, but also doesn't make sense at the same time. Logically speaking:

1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve.

2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?"

Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense.

I don't know how many of you have taken classes on formal logic and proofs, but if your problem/question contradicts your assumption, this implies that your question doesn't make sense to being with.

Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The omnipotence question is kinda interesting, but also doesn't make sense at the same time. Logically speaking: 1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve. 2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?" Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense. I don't know how many of you have taken classes on formal logic and proofs, but if your problem/question contradicts your assumption, this implies that your question doesn't make sense to being with. Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic?

if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

Well, my take is that this is exactly the kind of discussions that reinforce my belief that humans are unable to fathom the essence of superior beings. However, to be more precise:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Logically speaking: 1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve. 2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?" Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense.

I *do* think that the question makes sense - the reasoning is pretty much like that of any other proof by contradiction: Setup the negation of your hypothesis as an assumption, and show that it leads to nonsense or self-contradiction. What I feel is the problem with the entire proof of God's lack of ability, is that the term "omnipotent" is so awfully badly defined. The excited atheist takes it as meaning "can do anything at all", whereas I would take it to mean "can do anything in this world". That is, God can do anything in this world - but there might be other worlds (including the realm where God himself resides) where there are things that God cannot do.
Now, let's look at things with this definition of "omnipotent":
We assume that

God is omnipotent
<=> God can do anything in this world
<=> it's a defining characteristic of this world that there is nothing that God cannot do
=> there can be no stone in this world that God cannot lift.

Thus, asking if God can create a stone he cannot lift, is like asking if he can create an object with two centers of gravity or an equation for a circle whose circumference is not 2r\pi. If this impossible object would somehow be put into this world, the world would no longer be this world - the rules of the game would have been changed. So the question certainly does makes sense, and the answer would be a solid "no". But that "admittance" does not make God non-omnipotent, according to the definition of omnipotence.
So the real question would be whether it makes a difference to you, as an inhabitant of this world, if God is limited when acting outside of this world.

Makes sense? At least it does in my formal brain - I don't think it would make a difference for a very religious man. Logical reasoning seldom does.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic? if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

Sorry, its not relevant to your thread, but Orbax posted it and I just had to discuss it. I'll keep it short and won't hijack your thread.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Makes sense? At least it does in my formal brain - I don't think it would make a difference for a very religious man. Logical reasoning seldom does.

With the exception of me ofcourse. (Am I religious? )

But yes, I agree with you especially on the defeniton of "omnipotent" and "God." It's not well defined at all. It hard to prove/disprove the existence of something if you can't even define it. Which is why one believes/disbelieves in the existence of God. Anyways, thanks for your input and I hope I didn't piss off Psy-T by going on a tangent.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic? if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

To answer your questions:

You'll need to rephrase the first one. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there.

Well, if God is necessarily moral, I don't think that would put constraints on his omnipotency. God can still do whatever he wants. (Since I beleive in God), it's not my place to say this, but I suppose he chooses to act in a just manner? I'll make a simple analogy here. I find a wallet in my apartment complex. It has a 100 bucks in it plus a bunch of other stuff. I recognise the ID and it belongs to my neighbor. Now, I can eigther choose to keep it and buy a quater of bud , or return it to him. I choose to do the latter since it's the moral thing to do. It's not like I could keep it and get high for a few days, I chose not to. God, being God, doesn't have human weaknesses and therefore always acts justly, eventhough he can act unjustly if he chooses to. Or is that a contradcition in itself; to be necessarily moral and have free will?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z To answer your questions: You'll need to rephrase the first one. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there. Well, if God is necessarily moral, I don't think that would put constraints on his omnipotency. God can still do whatever he wants. (Since I beleive in God), it's not my place to say this, but I suppose he chooses to act in a just manner? I'll make a simple analogy here. I find a wallet in my apartment complex. It has a 100 bucks in it plus a bunch of other stuff. I recognise the ID and it belongs to my neighbor. Now, I can eigther choose to keep it and buy a quater of bud , or return it to him. I choose to do the latter since it's the moral thing to do. It's not like I could keep it and get high for a few days, I chose not to. God, being God, doesn't have human weaknesses and therefore always acts justly, eventhough he can act unjustly if he chooses to. Or is that a contradcition in itself; to be necessarily moral and have free will?

the second question is basically the first rephrased.


i think it is a contradiction in itself.
i'm not sure how to elaborate on that.

and dont worry about hijacking the thread, it would have probably died otherwise.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.