why guns in such an epic time

[Kveldulf]

 

People don't understand the purpose of school, IMO. It's not to teach you the truth. I don't know how the **** they'd do that, anyway. It's to teach you how to think; build up the mental muscles by obliging you to learn and manipulate different data types.

In a perfect world, maybe. With some really good teachers, certainly. In the world we live in, though, the purpose of school is indoctrination: to turn kids into good obedient little citizens consumers. In particular, with regards to teaching history, to turn them into good obedient patriotic unthinking cannon fodder laborers.

 

 

lol

[Kveldulf]

 

If you are being taught how to think, without truth, it's a scary propisition; a deficit of authenticity.

Truth is a highly problematic proposition. If you believe there is such a thing in a final, absolute sense, you're already mistaken. It's worse if you get that at school.

 

 

From my understanding, that statement becomes mistakenly contradictory (law of non-contradiction). To label truth as having no absolute sense, would require an absolute statement, therefore qualifying truth to become absolute in at least one circumstance. Also, to label no other possibilites of truth being quantified would require faith - since I or you are probably not omniscient. A final absolute sense of truth, from what i figure, becomes the essence of faith. To some naturalists, they call it probablity, but still have faith in the probablie or improbable.

 

One way or another, again, from my understanding, you cannot logically seperate the premise of 'faith' from any perogative (or the element of truth).

Edited December 28, 2013 by Kveldulf

[PrimeJunta]

"All truths are relative, including this one" is not self-contradictory, nor is at an absolute statement. It is a useful premise, however. I believe the hunt for absolute truths is a huge waste of effort, so it's simpler to assume that they don't even exist. For most practical terms, highly certain, highly unambiguous relative truths behave similarly as absolute truths (should they exist) anyway. We can base our lives around them just as easily, without getting mired with counting angels dancing on a pinhead.

 

Also, even if you don't accept the premise, it's a looong stretch from "Some truths are absolute" to "proposition P is absolutely true," for most propositions, at least most propositions that you can teach at school.

 

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

[Walsingham]

 

People don't understand the purpose of school, IMO. It's not to teach you the truth. I don't know how the **** they'd do that, anyway. It's to teach you how to think; build up the mental muscles by obliging you to learn and manipulate different data types.

In a perfect world, maybe. With some really good teachers, certainly. In the world we live in, though, the purpose of school is indoctrination: to turn kids into good obedient little citizens consumers. In particular, with regards to teaching history, to turn them into good obedient patriotic unthinking cannon fodder laborers.

 

 

Please calm down. This isn't 1984. Or Stalin's Putin's Russia.

 

It takes a LOT of work to indoctrinate people. Teacher's simply don't have the time, or control over all the different channels of information. Ask Hurlshot.

 

Anyway, point is still that the gun is what the devs make of it. What they choose to turn it into in terms of fights and powers. The gun itself is no more than a tool.

[Kveldulf]

"All truths are relative, including this one" is not self-contradictory, nor is at an absolute statement. It is a useful premise, however. I believe the hunt for absolute truths is a huge waste of effort, so it's simpler to assume that they don't even exist. For most practical terms, highly certain, highly unambiguous relative truths behave similarly as absolute truths (should they exist) anyway. We can base our lives around them just as easily, without getting mired with counting angels dancing on a pinhead.

 

Also, even if you don't accept the premise, it's a looong stretch from "Some truths are absolute" to "proposition P is absolutely true," for most propositions, at least most propositions that you can teach at school.

 

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

 

The premise "all truths are relative" is contradictory because the statement is not relative. You can proclaim it is, but it's a logical fallacy.

 

If truth were relative, is that statement really meaningful - since truth would be ultimately relative? if there is no true meaning, then what are you trying to say?

[teknoman2]

"learn how to think" has an ambiguous meaning... it's better to say "learn to use your brain"

[Kveldulf]

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

 

Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it.....

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Kveldulf

[Abel]

History is mostly taught really badly at schools. It's a tool of indoctrination;

 

You can't imagine how much i agree with you. I felt it was a problem to say it here, so i did not. But it's so truly true... As an example, in France, we were teached long ago that colonialists saved poor countries and poor people. And now that we have some... "problems", colonialists were just killers and robbers: one extreme or another. France is just not at peace with its history, Japanese can sometimes convince themselves that it was China who attacked them during the Sino-japanese war, and so on... I've not an extended knowledge of all that matters, but i really think that it's hard to just learn "facts" at school, in a pure cold way, and with no political matters/interests. USA is not different and has, i think, a really huge problem with this too, as it seems they learned really exagerated things (as an example, i don't know how many americans know that more than 80% of Germany casualties during WW2 were against Russia. However, just wondering, not judging). The biggest problem here seeming to be that people (in whichever country we could speak about) just "trust what people say"...

 

I spoke with ancients... The way they learnt history was (at least) different. Indoctrination is really the right word, but, to me, it's just one more way... The first: TV. So many lies, so many things that are just "silenced"... And what gives me a shock day, after day, is just that people end to have an opinion on whatever subject they were talked to, without knowing even a few about it, just because "they said it on TV/at School..."

 

Like Hildern said in Fallout New vegas: "The less people know about things, the more opinions they have. I'm a scientist, and am not about political matters" (or something like that).

 

But hey, i wonder if it is really possible to speak frankly and calmly about these matters. This is really interesting to me because there are people from so many countries here that maybe i'll learn something/discover i'm wrong all along and so on...

 

PS: Had a hard time to write this, and i expect to be misunderstood quite a bit because i miss so many words to explain me well.

 

EDIT: To me God is not a cause, but a consequence: people who don't understand something just seek for an explanation. God has the same source as sciences. A response to needs of understanding and explaining. Your list may be true if you assume that faith was a "start point" to think about the world thousands years ago. Well, it's my opinion, and faith is not about logic (and i have a hard time to explain exactly what i meant here ). I have no problem with people who "believe", even if think that faith is an obstacle when people just try to "think", "listen", "understand in a pure logic way". But it's not really about history here, i guess.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Abel

[Kveldulf]

 

History is mostly taught really badly at schools. It's a tool of indoctrination;

 

You can't imagine how much i agree with you. I felt it was a problem to say it here, so i did not. But it's so truly true... As an example, in France, we were teached long ago that colonialists saved poor countries and poor people. And now that we have some... "problems", colonialists were just killers and robbers: one extreme or another. France is just not at peace with its history, Japanese can sometimes convince themselves that it was China who attacked them during the Sino-japanese war, and so on... I've not an extended knowledge of all that matters, but i really think that it's hard to just learn "facts" at school, in a pure cold way, and with no political matters/interests. USA is not different and has, i think, a really huge problem with this too, as it seems they learned really exagerated things (as an example, i don't know how many americans know that more than 80% of Germany casualties during WW2 were against Russia. However, just wondering, not judging). The biggest problem here seeming to be that people (in whichever country we could speak about) just "trust what people say"...

 

I spoke with ancients... The way they learnt history was (at least) different. Indoctrination is really the right word, but, to me, it's just one more way... The first: TV. So many lies, so many things that are just "silenced"... And what gives me a shock day, after day, is just that people end to have an opinion on whatever subject they were talked to, without knowing even a few about it, just because "they said it on TV/at School..."

 

Like Hildern said in Fallout New vegas: "The less people know about things, the more opinions they have. I'm a scientist, and am not about political matters" (or something like that).

 

But hey, i wonder if it is really possible to speak frankly and calmly about these matters. This is really interesting to me because there are people from so many countries here that maybe i'll learn something/discover i'm wrong all along and so on...

 

PS: Had a hard time to write this, and i expect to be misunderstood quite a bit because i miss so many words to explain me well.

 

EDIT: To me God is not a cause, but a consequence: people who don't understand something just seek for an explanation. God has the same source as sciences. A response to needs of understanding and explaining. Your list may be true if you assume that faith was a "start point" to think about the world thousands years ago. Well, it's my opinion, and faith is not about logic (and i have a hard time to explain exactly what i meant here ). I have no problem with people who "believe", even if think that faith is an obstacle when people just try to "think", "listen", "understand in a pure logic way". But it's not really about history here, i guess.

 

 

It is your liberty to believe in 'X'. You may believe and by proclamation, that God is a consequence, but making the statement doesn't make it true. Equating God or the belief there of, as merely a way to explain something not understood is a bit narrow too, don't you think?

 

I'm not sure what you mean exactly with 'God has the same source as sciences'. I could presume you mean he follows his own design (he wouldn't be a creator if he didn't).

 

Logical deduction has to be used in finding the essence in material substance. If you really think faith is without logic, how can you logically say that? Can you prove it is without logic, even empirically? In the realm of apologetics, I don't believe so..

 

I'm not saying logic is faith, but rather, logic (reality) naturally leads to faith; which logically, should lead to an ultimate, rational interface (opposed to the unknowable aspects, omni-x); whom I believe is Jesus Christ. Trust is a different story; that involves faith again but without the knowledge to gauge entirely.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Kveldulf

[PrimeJunta]

 

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

 

Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it.....

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching.

 

 

Oh, jeebus. That's a broken chain of logic if I ever saw one. Philosophy has advanced a bit since Plato and Aristotle, y'know.

 

(1) Consider a lump of uranium ore. Observe a nucleus decay. What is the efficient cause of that particular nucleus, rather than some other nucleus, decaying?

(2) Why is it not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes? For example, what if the Universe (in some sense) is infinitely old (in some sense?)

(2b) How about a circular chain of causes. What if time is circular rather than linear, and the Universe's ending is the cause of its beginning? How do you rule this out? 

(3), (4), and (5) follow from your flawed premises; therefore they are necessarily flawed.

(5b) Why is the First Cause necessarily God?

 

Edit: your first statement is also incorrect. You do not need to have an absolute point of reference to be able to value or assess information, or anything else. You can always value or assess it relative to other, relative points of reference. Which is what we all do, even Platonists like you -- the only difference is that you mistakenly believe your relative points of reference are absolutes.

Edited December 28, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Abel]

"It is your liberty to believe in 'X'. You may believe and by proclamation, that God is a consequence, but making the statement doesn't make it true. Equating God or the belief there of, as merely a way to explain something not understood is a bit narrow too, don't you think?"

 

That's why i wrote "To me..." and not "The only truth is...". And it does not make it false too.

I don't think one opinion is better than another, or more narrow minded. As an example, to me, it would be more narrow minded to claim that God exists just for the sake of claiming it. Be sure it's not an offense. We are just constructed in a different way.

 

"I'm not sure what you mean exactly with 'God has the same source as sciences'. I could presume you mean he follows his own design (he wouldn't be a creator if he didn't)."

 

I meant that sciences, since the start, tries to explain the world. Why the apple always fall on the ground? Why water become solidified when it's cold? Why the sun is moving in the sky? And so on. And for things that science could not explain, there were "it must be a powerful something than created it all". Like Gagarine said "I went to the sky, but i never saw God". Just to say that science explained many things last 2000 years, but i even doubt science will explain ALL, even in a very far future. So there is still a place for God. I won't speak about creationism, but i guess you have an idea about my feelings.

 

"Logical deduction has to be used in finding the essence in material substance. If you really think faith is without logic, how can you logically say that? Can you prove it is without logic, even empirically? In the realm of apologetics, I don't believe so.."

 

It is just that in my mind (i would be surprised to be wrong though), faith is the ability to believe in something/someone without any proof. That's why i said "faith is not about logic". But i think that faith is not just about religion. Faith is about confidence in people you don't know too, about giving money to Obsidian during a kickstarter campaign, and so on. I really think people who believe in God are some lucky people. It would be great if i could believe, but i just can't. I was not determined to, in the same way that Asian people are determined to have narrowed eyes or African people to have black skin (i really believe we are all fully determined since the start and that we have very few true choices to make in a lifetime). Is it kind of faith too? Maybe. But remember that i'm french and that i only know a few english words

 

"I'm not saying logic is faith, but rather, logic (reality) naturally leads to faith; which logically, should lead to an ultimate, rational interface (opposed to the unknowable aspects, omni-x); whom I believe is Jesus Christ. Trust is a different story; that involves faith again but without the knowledge to gauge entirely."

 

I just can't understand what you mean. Is it because my english is not so great? Or because it seems that you say it's easier to believe in god than in people? Well, i know the vast majority of people are bad people, but i like people. So, i trust them by default. Trust is a gift to me, a gift that can be taken back. I will do many things for the sake of people i don't even know, but i do it because i want to. Not because a book told me to. I really have respect for people who believe. So, i won't speak about Jesus, and things like that, because i'm afraid that my opinion may hurt you, and i really don't want to. As for the logic (or reality) naturally leading to faith, which is weird to me.

 

Well, i guess history is an easier thing to discuss about. I often speak about religion with various believers, and i've learnt that even when it is interesting, nobody will never change his mind with just some words. Plus, i don't try to prove i'm right. Everybody is different. My truth is not yours, and i don't want my truth being the only truth in the world. It would be sad.

 

Is there any update about religions and faith in PoE?

Edited December 28, 2013 by Abel

[Abel]

 

 

 

Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it.....

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching.

 

 

Oh, jeebus. That's a broken chain of logic if I ever saw one. Philosophy has advanced a bit since Plato and Aristotle, y'know.

 

(1) Consider a lump of uranium ore. Observe a nucleus decay. What is the efficient cause of that particular nucleus, rather than some other nucleus, decaying?

(2) Why is it not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes? For example, what if the Universe (in some sense) is infinitely old (in some sense?)

(2b) How about a circular chain of causes. What if time is circular rather than linear, and the Universe's ending is the cause of its beginning? How do you rule this out? 

(3), (4), and (5) follow from your flawed premises; therefore they are necessarily flawed.

(5b) Why is the First Cause necessarily God?

 

Edit: your first statement is also incorrect. You do not need to have an absolute point of reference to be able to value or assess information, or anything else. You can always value or assess it relative to other, relative points of reference. Which is what we all do, even Platonists like you -- the only difference is that you mistakenly believe your relative points of reference are absolutes.

 

 

Well you saw the same things as me. But it's just a different way to view things. I'm agree with you (once more?). But i don't think anybody can prove his assessments when it's about religion vs science. And it seems to be something like this here.

 

I really think history was a better topic :D

Edited December 28, 2013 by Abel

[PrimeJunta]

Well you saw the same things as me. But it's just a different way to view things. I'm agree with you (once more?). But i don't think anybody can prove his assessments when it's about religion vs science. And it seems to be something like this here.

It's rather sad if science has become something you choose to believe in rather than something you try to understand IMO.

 

I really think history was a better topic :D

I agree. And both are rather far off this thread's.

[Walsingham]

I really am going to buy one of those nice le creuset pans and smack myself hard in the face every time I hear someone talking about science as if it were an object, rather than a methodology.

[PrimeJunta]

It's a hell of a lot more than just a methodology, Walsingham.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Nope. It's just a practice among a gazillion others, albeit a creative one with interesting outcomes - some would even delineate a few of them as "important".

Edited December 28, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[PrimeJunta]

Science is an immense body of knowledge about the universe. That's far more than a "practice" or a "methodology." Methods and practices are a part -- but only a part, and not the most interesting part IMO -- of that body of knowledge.

[Elerond]

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

 

 

[nikolokolus]

Can we please get back to arguing about guns and immershun?

[Tamerlane]

Guns are wicked-cool.

[Walsingham]

Guns are wicked-cool.

 

And there we have it.

[Lephys]

Guns are wicked-cool.

 

This thread was becoming quite unimmersive, until you just said that. Now I really feel like I'm in a discussion about guns again.

(Will that work? He covered guns, I covered immershun.)

[Kveldulf]

 

 

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

 

Valuing (and assessing) information always climbs back to something more absolute - more unmoving: you have to have an understanding (that derives from an absolute) of why to value something in order to really value it.....

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

So in other words, even in business school, a perspective of faith (premise), dare I say morality, is critical to learning and teaching.

 

 

Oh, jeebus. That's a broken chain of logic if I ever saw one. Philosophy has advanced a bit since Plato and Aristotle, y'know.

 

(1) Consider a lump of uranium ore. Observe a nucleus decay. What is the efficient cause of that particular nucleus, rather than some other nucleus, decaying?

(2) Why is it not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes? For example, what if the Universe (in some sense) is infinitely old (in some sense?)

(2b) How about a circular chain of causes. What if time is circular rather than linear, and the Universe's ending is the cause of its beginning? How do you rule this out? 

(3), (4), and (5) follow from your flawed premises; therefore they are necessarily flawed.

(5b) Why is the First Cause necessarily God?

 

Edit: your first statement is also incorrect. You do not need to have an absolute point of reference to be able to value or assess information, or anything else. You can always value or assess it relative to other, relative points of reference. Which is what we all do, even Platonists like you -- the only difference is that you mistakenly believe your relative points of reference are absolutes.

 

 

I'll add another few cents and then railroad the topic back (kk with you responding to this, but I'll refrain responding for the sake of everyone's mood):

 

First, I'm not sure why or how ancient Greek philosphy or even Thomas Aquinas (who wrote effecient cause) are antiquated, obsolete? If you know so, I would love to hear your rationality.

 

Is it just because modern logic is superior; from awareness, discovery? I don't think so, if anything, in a lot of areas its regressed. Sure, we may have many new propisitions (many allusive, vain ones) in this 'current age of science' and some theories we've picked up along the way; being tested but not absolutely definite in all cases (otherwise it would be a law). Modern science is still a realm of observation; being subject to the essence of faith or probablity - depending on the conscious observers' initial premise before observation. Even physical laws disentigrate within the origin of the expansion theory.

 

Also regarding your counter propositions:

 

1. Not sure what point you are trying to make other than: an exception must exist for x because of x. This is illogical if so, and is exactly what the statement Thomas Aquinas was trying to make: you can't prove something with the same substance (or essence): it requires something outside of it to prove anything.

 

2. This is a presupposition, and it doesn't assert anything; what you are attempting to theory craft is an idea that is much deeper than infinity, into the word eternal. If things regressed or digressed in both directions without beginning or end, that would be eternal. Infinity has a fixed point and continues. If you are attempting to say that the universe is eternal, then what has led you to that conclusion? This presupposition requires faith.

 

2b. How do you rule it in? If the universe is everything that will ever be, then its own laws are self limiting and show that this cannot be the case. This statement would require a lot of faith (a lot of trust), as there is no indication that this is the case.

 

3-5. Nevermind effecient cause is also congruent with thermodynamics - fyi

 

5b. If we are to agree that an origin exists (unomved mover) it is either irrational or rational. If it be irrational, how can something rational come to exist from it? (I'm keeping this train of logic short, for your brevity) Therefore, it must be rational. Can parts of this being be irrational? Well to us it can be perceived that way (doesn't make it absolutely true). I believe therin lies a duality: There is something unknowable and knowable about this originate: in christianity (what the bible actually alludes to), God the Father is the unknowable (omni-whatever), the son is the rational interface of the Father: being the only thing truly rational, and being the only point of reference we will understand of God. The Spirit is the thought and will carried out through in his design (reason): reflected in anything understanding it.

 

The other part of this coin is: the originate, perceives everything without time; the intelect of this being is without knowledge, so therefore, in his mind everything purposeful must be carried out. If anything is purposeless it would go against the very premise of a God. Think of ripples in everything having a dependency, essentially.

 

 

 

Sure facts can be relative in a form, but from as I see it, they can not escape fundamentals - a hierarchy of dependencies leading up to, in a more progressive sense, that which is more and more unmovable/unchangeable.

 

 

_____ Railroad Beginning _____

 

Guns are indeed kewl. I'm particularly fond of the archaic, vendigroth weaponry in Arcanum.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kveldulf

[Yonjuro]

 

First, I'm not sure why or how ancient Greek philosphy or even Thomas Aquinas (who wrote effecient cause) are antiquated, obsolete? If you know so, I would love to hear your rationality.

 

 

 

 Err, I don't see how we got here in a discussion about guns, but anyway - Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God all have a leap of faith. 

 

 Here's one of the problems with this one:

 

 

 

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

 

 

 

 6. Therefore something exists that doesn't have an efficient cause.

 7. Therefore, it is not the case that everything has an efficient cause.

 8. Everything has an efficient cause (repeated first clause of line one).

 9. Line 7 contradicts line 8 - done.

 

now, about those guns... 

[Kveldulf]

 

 

First, I'm not sure why or how ancient Greek philosphy or even Thomas Aquinas (who wrote effecient cause) are antiquated, obsolete? If you know so, I would love to hear your rationality.

 

 

 

 Err, I don't see how we got here in a discussion about guns, but anyway - Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God all have a leap of faith. 

 

 Here's one of the problems with this one:

 

 

 

 

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

 

 

 

 6. Therefore something exists that doesn't have an efficient cause.

 7. Therefore, it is not the case that everything has an efficient cause.

 8. Everything has an efficient cause (repeated first clause of line one).

 9. Line 7 contradicts line 8 - done.

 

now, about those guns... 

 

 

Too tempting.... you might want to look at your wording regarding 'something' (it doesn't fit, or equal first cause) and replace with first cause - to maintain the logic (and associated grammatical changes). This falls in line with the logic - unmovable mover and quantum physics (due to dualities).

 

As far as guns go, it would be amusing to see at least one large caliber equivelant, over .70. Something like this (but a blackpowder equivalent):

 

 

maybe even something like this (swivel cannon) but hand held (wouldn't be a swivel anymore), requiring a skill:

 

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kveldulf