Some contradictions I would like to have explained.

[Czardas]

why?

Because it has no object other than self-indulgence. I consider this to conform to the definition of "base" ("devoid of high values or ethics").

who determines what high values and ethics are?

you do realize that logic (cognition) and emotion are pretty closely tied to one another, right?

On the contrary -- they are antithetically opposed to one another. However, they do coexist in most, if not all, individuals and may be engaged in titanic struggles for supremacy.

Wrong.

[PlatoByProxy]

I'll just make this last comment and then that's it. You have no logical basis upon which to declare the pursuit of abstract knowledge as "above" or "better" than hedonism. This is pure ego stroking and has nothing to do with reason.

I never said that it was "better." However, it is a rarefied realm to which few can aspire, while everyone can blithely engage in hedonism. It is "superior" insofar as it requires a superior intellect, but not in a moral sense (unless you contrast it to pure, unadulterated hedonism which results in an abdication of responsibility).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Fastidiously scouring every inch of the human psyche is a gargantuan task, certainly, but an unnecessary one. To create and maintain a just society, however, one requires merely a firm grasp of human nature (one that may be informed by experience as well as scientific inquiry).

Damn my unkeepable promises!

It's "unnecessary" to study physical cosmology as well. Am I a "base" person because I want to be a cosmologist/physicist? For that matter, ontology rarely has any practical use. Is it base? In addition, how do you know that a complete understanding of human behavior is useless? If, in the future, we begin to modify our brains, I'd say a full resolution of the mind-body problem and the biological basis of behavior damn well better have happened.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Wrong.

That's depressing. Logic isn't possible? Besides, can't emotionless computers do logic?

[Czardas]

I'll just make this last comment and then that's it. You have no logical basis upon which to declare the pursuit of abstract knowledge as "above" or "better" than hedonism. This is pure ego stroking and has nothing to do with reason.

I never said that it was "better." However, it is a rarefied realm to which few can aspire, while everyone can blithely engage in hedonism. It is "superior" insofar as it requires a superior intellect, but not in a moral sense (unless you contrast it to pure, unadulterated hedonism which results in an abdication of responsibility).

So it's superior because... it's rare?

I mean, only a few people have ever died because of VX nerve agent, but nobody's trying to say that their deaths are somehow superior because "oh, anyone can die in a car accident, while there are only a few kilograms of VX nerve agent in the entire world!"

[Hayteria]

If you're not aware of how much complexity there is to understanding humanity and how it can't be understood without actual scientific investigation, then you're not really worth my time. I tried, but I can't take you seriously anymore.

Fastidiously scouring every inch of the human psyche is a gargantuan task, certainly, but an unnecessary one. To create and maintain a just society, however, one requires merely a firm grasp of human nature (one that may be informed by experience as well as scientific inquiry).

... are you implying that personal interpretations of personal experiences are as valuable as scientific inquiry?

You seem not to have answered when I previously asked you whether you mean what you say or not, but if you mean the things you're saying in this topic, perhaps this might be a fitting response to them.

[Kamsaki]

That's depressing. Logic isn't possible? Besides, can't emotionless computers do logic?

Not predicate logic, anyway. That is, not a full analysis of every possible statement in predicate logic.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Not predicate logic, anyway.

I want to die right now. Is all of science empty? It's just emotion?

[Czardas]

Wrong.

That's depressing. Logic isn't possible? Besides, can't emotionless computers do logic?

Logic ≠ reason.

Also, I never look for sources usually. Aren't you proud of me? ):

Not predicate logic, anyway.

I want to die right now. Is all of science empty? It's just emotion?

No, there are also some numbers involved.

[Hayteria]

I'll just make this last comment and then that's it. You have no logical basis upon which to declare the pursuit of abstract knowledge as "above" or "better" than hedonism. This is pure ego stroking and has nothing to do with reason.

I never said that it was "better." However, it is a rarefied realm to which few can aspire, while everyone can blithely engage in hedonism. It is "superior" insofar as it requires a superior intellect, but not in a moral sense (unless you contrast it to pure, unadulterated hedonism which results in an abdication of responsibility).

... what the hell are you trying to say here?

[JuNii]

Those on the right, particulaly the 'Right to lifers', please explain why you judge a bunch of cells to be worth protesting for, but not the folks on death row or your nations enemies?

Hmmm... not taking the Right to Lifer's stance. but perhaps this might help.
Those on death row, chose to do the deeds that they were found guilty of. now granted, the system isn't perfect, so yes, an innocent is accidentally killed. but those that are actually Guilty of the crimes they were accused of chose to do what they did. a newborn or even xygote has no choice. it wasn't even aware of the question asked. thus they are more 'innocent' than even those innocents on death row.

Surely with some education or some dialogue such people could be as much benifit as a newborn?

except the survivors of the crime have to deal with what they might view as a travesty of justice. If your entire family was killed in the most brutial fashion imaginable... would you want the killer to spend a couple of years in jail then released because they're now 'rehabilitated'? you can answer now, but when it actually does happen to you, who knows how emotions will twist your worldview.

*oh, and while I do believe in the Death Penalty, I also believe it's used too often and should be used with more care.

So why reduce yourself to the level of a barbarian and kill for the sake of your emotions?

Emotions are what makes us barbarians. they are also what makes us noble and Civilized.

And for those that spout religion why not heed the 'Turn the other cheek,' 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'though shalt not kill/murder' passages?

and? I could say. "They are not Judging. They are just setting the meeting between the Judge and those who will be judged."

of course, realize everyone will be judged.

again, I am not arguing for the Right To Lifer's. this is just my viewpoint on the whole matter.

[Greed and Death]

I do not cnsider myself on either the right or the left and nay in the centre, I just think.

Those on the right, particulaly the 'Right to lifers', please explain why you judge a bunch of cells to be worth protesting for, but not the folks on death row or your nations enemies?

Surely with some education or some dialogue such people could be as much benifit as a newborn? So why reduce yourself to the level of a barbarian and kill for the sake of your emotions? And for those that spout religion why not heed the 'Turn the other cheek,' 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'though shalt not kill/murder' passages?

This has puzzled me since childhood and I have endured alot of heated arguements and insults for being 'unpatriotic' and being an 'idiot'.

I would like some answers if you would kindly indulge me.

On the death row inmate. One has been convicted the other has not.
On the enemy one is trying to kill an American solider the other isn't.
Not that I am against abortion.