[Weliddryn]

What is your ideal world? Why this?

What is the world you woud find most displeasing? Why?

Imagine! Create! It may not be perfect, but it is yours.

[snail]

My ideal world is peaceful. Everyone loves everyone else, and every action is an expression of that love. The worst imaginable world is one where everyone is completely selfish, ruthless and sadistic, where positive actions are punished and evil and cruelty are rewarded. In the worst world, there is neither justice nor mercy, and everyone lives as both the source and recipient of constant disapproval and fear. Sensitivity is brutally criticized, kindness is perceived as weakness, all goodness is considered foolish. Not only is everyone is constant pain, but they are not allowed to express suffering without increasing it. Those who attempt to rebel are tortured and killed publicly, to be used as examples. All reproduction comes from sexual violence, all creativity is turned toward destructive purposes, and all children are toughened up with the most severe possible abuse, both verbal and physical, because weakness, trust, and the ability to suffer are universally perceived to be worse than cruelty. Every victim is blamed and every perpetrator is celebrated as a victor.

[Lucretius]

I think this is my ideal world.

[Blueguardian]

I think snail may have just described heaven and hell on earth! My ideal world is simply of one of my own design. Having the ability to do anything and change anything, like a semi-god if you were. I could really then build my IDEAL world and then live in it. I don't think a peaceful world is enough nor is it complete. A truly peaceful world would be like a color pallet missing red. I don't like the color, but its needed to make purple, pink, orange, etc. I love fuzzy bunnies and whatnot but I know I would want to see something blown up from time to time too! I think Snails description of a crappy world is pretty good. I think people could always add to it but I will leave it as is and say +1.

[snail]

It's not actually the worst I can imagine, but it is the worst I am willing to imagine.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Weliddryn]

I think snail may have just described heaven and hell on earth! My ideal world is simply of one of my own design. Having the ability to do anything and change anything, like a semi-god if you were. I could really then build my IDEAL world and then live in it. I don't think a peaceful world is enough nor is it complete. A truly peaceful world would be like a color pallet missing red. I don't like the color, but its needed to make purple, pink, orange, etc. I love fuzzy bunnies and whatnot but I know I would want to see something blown up from time to time too! I think Snails description of a crappy world is pretty good. I think people could always add to it but I will leave it as is and say +1.

Why would you like to see these explosions at times?

[Blueguardian]

Explosions are very neat. They are like, predictable chaos. Have you ever watched a demolition job when they take out a high rise building? How about shaking a can of soda and letting the drink go all over! Chaos is one of the worlds colors. It doesn't have to be evil. It adds creative value to a great many things.

Do you like fireworks? If so, you like explosions. :)

[Weliddryn]

I asked because I thought you brought up a good point.

Thank you.

[SeeNbetween]

The Science of Man: Saint-Simon and ‘Unity of Cause'

Henri Comte de Saint-Simon presents an interesting argument in ‘Essay on the Science of Man.’ His goals are to prove that the best and most plausible method in which to base one’s knowledge is the scientific one. This implies basing one’s knowledge in reason. This is also known as a posteriori reasoning, and using it he presents a brief yet thought-provoking argument against the ‘concept of God.’ He uses Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes as his role models for what it means to think systematically and base fact on observation. He attempts to demonstrate that if ‘God’ is to exist, it cannot do so in the physical sciences, whose way of objective reasoning and observed analysis is not synonymous with our very concept or definition of God. Simon attempts to convey these points by illustrating for the reader how contradictory the definition of ‘God’ is with the nature of our physical sciences The underlying premise is that while religious thinking in general is a burden on humanity and ‘progress’ is moving towards enlightenment; where the physical sciences refute the metaphysical: real inductive reasoning reveals the real problems. He then goes on to apply these points and demonstrate, scientifically, how they can be applied.
Simon’s first goal is the refutation of Deistic thought. When Simon refutes any possible idea of God, he does not do so by refuting any of the evidence a religious apologist would offer in defense of belief, he instead points out that their very concept of religion is self-contradictory. He does this in the first part of his two essays, entitled On the Unity of Causation,
“Every scientific discovery has shewn up one of the fallacies of the system which claims to be revealed: the idea of God is nothing but human intelligence universalized.”
This is a convoluted statement that can use deciphering. Simone believes that God is merely the sum of human intelligence and knowledge ‘multiplied’ to the conceivable highest degree.
“A Deist may comment on this definition as much as he likes, but his arguments will never amount to more than the enumeration of the various known faculties of intelligence, coupled with the assertion in each case, that they are raised to the highest degree, and the conclusion that their combination constitutes the absolute perfection which is the distinctive character of God. . .The idea of God being thus defective, all applications of this idea is equally defective. Man, having invented God, considers himself to be an important being: he believes that the Universe was created for his benefit, and that the planet he inhabits is the centre of the Universe, the stars revolving round it for the whole purpose of illuminating it. All these ideas are now known to be false.”
This statement comes across as narcissistic, but if one looks at it objectively it makes perfect sense. Simone goes on to further apply this concept to his modern age,
. . .“I say, and I claim to have shown, that the idea of God should not be used in the physical sciences, but I do not say that it should not be used in political matters, at any rate for a long time, since it is the best means that has been discovered of managing the fundamental political relations.”
Simone’s motives can be seen well through this statement. Simone’s interests lie not in whether or not the idea of God is accepted or denied, for this is irrelevant. Instead
“We have advanced by stages so far that there remains only a step further to arrive at a universal conception. It would be cowardly after our scientific reconnaissance to fall back on the main body of our ideas; to come so near the intellectual summit, and yet not complete the ascent. Gentlemen, rouse yourselves; I feel inspired, and Bacon will speak through my voice. . . .”
Why Simone feels so inspired and able to speak the voice of Bacon can be argued, but his tone is genuine and his focus does not seem to be on himself but on the objectivity and physiology of humanity. Thus one asks what exactly Simone wants for humanity. Well, what he is really getting at is that
“This [Christian] Institution, in respect of the laws it laid down, the judges it appointed, the ethics it taught, the preachers it sent forth, had become a burden on society.”Simon does not mean, specifically, Christianity. He means Deistic thinking that so often accompanied it throughout his age. He takes this concept to the next level, deriving that if there is no religion there is less dividing humanity and more bringing it together.”
“Charlemagne realized that the huge population of a great part of the world and its neighboring islands, composed of several nations, with well-defined customs, totally distinct languages, divided by natural obstacles, living in different climates . . .At the same time he realized that these diverse peoples would inevitably be in a continual state of war were linked by general ideas, common to all of them, and unless a body composed of the most educated men was given the task of applying general principles to the objects which were of common interest, and acting as a tribunal of the law of nation. He realized that religion was a code of ethics which should be common to all the European peoples, and that the administrative body consisting of the ministers of this religion should also have the character of a universal institution.”
Simon alludes to Charlemagne in his attempt to reason with Napoleon. We know from his previous assertions that he does not necessarily support the consciousness that allows this sort of universal institution, as Simon spends two pages refuting the concept of ‘God.’ It is not important to note how he does this, for the exact possibility of whether or not God does exist is irrelevant. Saint-Simone’s real motive lies in convincing the ‘Institution’ that truth lies in reasoning and analysis, not in a priori, the kind of ‘knowledge’ or ‘reason’ that deals with knowledge that can be known naturally, or assumed, so to speak. Simone vigorously supports the antithesis of this form of knowledge, a posteriori, and vigorously attempts to get the reader to do the same. To understand the differences between Simone’s view of the religious-mind and enlightened ne can closely examine the difference between a priori and a posteriori. A priori is already known, or assumed, from general knowledge of a subject. This is synonymous with the concept of God. There is no proof of God, but we assume he exists because we are told so. A posteriori, on the other hand, is knowledge not assumed, but observed and analyzed, then realized through reason.
Saint-Simon presents an interesting argument in ‘Essay on the Science of Man.’ He has an interesting, though convoluted thesis and defends it by alluding to figures such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Charlemagne. Each of whom had a unique appeal to the French Institution. His goals are to prove that the best and most plausible way to base one’s thought is through “reasoning and to base all reasoning on facts which have been observed and analyzed”. For Simon it follows that God is not applicable with any of the physical sciences, but according to him that is for everyone to decide for themselves.

that's an essay i just wrote if you care to reformat it you may find it interesting

[Tkae]

I saw this and laughed SO hard!

Their mild mannered, though sometimes funky, exterior hides a highly passionate core and a feelings/"people matter" based values system that one treads on lightly, lest you become the target of the Jihadist INFP helping you to "see the error of you ways".