![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
What does arts mean to me?
Time is an illusion. I was having a really really late shower. Plus it's 4 am now. So yea
How do we obtain this measurement of time? I'm thinking because there's incidentally a consistency in this random flux. There's an island of order in the vast sea of disorder.
A year = 365 1/4 days = time taken for Earth to go around the sun. What men did was just arbitrarily put a string of numbers aka hours from the moment the sun rose till it set. Then they divide the hours to minutes, then seconds. It's only because the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at relatively the same pace every rotation and revolution. And if one day, changes were to occur with regard to the speed, what becomes our sense of time? Will we rely our sense of time solely on clocks? Bah. I'm not that passionate to pursue the spin off.
How do we obtain this measurement of time? I'm thinking because there's incidentally a consistency in this random flux. There's an island of order in the vast sea of disorder.
A year = 365 1/4 days = time taken for Earth to go around the sun. What men did was just arbitrarily put a string of numbers aka hours from the moment the sun rose till it set. Then they divide the hours to minutes, then seconds. It's only because the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at relatively the same pace every rotation and revolution. And if one day, changes were to occur with regard to the speed, what becomes our sense of time? Will we rely our sense of time solely on clocks? Bah. I'm not that passionate to pursue the spin off.
I gave an atheist discussion group a go some time ago. Atheism isn't really a subject one wants to bring up as a casual thing. It should, I reckon, but, oh well..
What troubled me as we discussed some of the current issues was the paranoid suspicion atheism breeds. It's only tempting to proclaim that we are plagued, if not bedeviled, by religions and in time, there will indubitably be a union of church and state everywhere. I'm living in Singapore now and certainly don't see it coming. The reality is that atheists here are not at all condemned, and we're not some kind of theocracy, or at least whatever the state says will definitely be more conclusive than any organized religion here, so why the red code. Take it easy, time is on our side, and it won't take long for the rest to find it absurd to not question their firmly held metaphysical opinions.
Another point I simply have to bring up is the approach some atheists take towards religions. As much as I'm against religions, I'd do well to remind myself that I should not be drawn into combating against organized religions for the sake of it, what we really want to tackle is the attitude towards dogma in general. We're simply fighting a wrong war by trying to upset the religious. How are we atheists justified to make it our business to change others' beliefs? Goodness, let's leave all these tricks to the evangelists.
What troubled me as we discussed some of the current issues was the paranoid suspicion atheism breeds. It's only tempting to proclaim that we are plagued, if not bedeviled, by religions and in time, there will indubitably be a union of church and state everywhere. I'm living in Singapore now and certainly don't see it coming. The reality is that atheists here are not at all condemned, and we're not some kind of theocracy, or at least whatever the state says will definitely be more conclusive than any organized religion here, so why the red code. Take it easy, time is on our side, and it won't take long for the rest to find it absurd to not question their firmly held metaphysical opinions.
Another point I simply have to bring up is the approach some atheists take towards religions. As much as I'm against religions, I'd do well to remind myself that I should not be drawn into combating against organized religions for the sake of it, what we really want to tackle is the attitude towards dogma in general. We're simply fighting a wrong war by trying to upset the religious. How are we atheists justified to make it our business to change others' beliefs? Goodness, let's leave all these tricks to the evangelists.
I'm now skeptical to say that our morality is based on our innate human nature. Even if studies with regard to the nature of Man and non-human animals, the relationship of the many social structures and the evolution of emotions, are finalized, it would only be a factual claim of being natural and I fail to see the connection between what we should do and what we do or what happens naturally for that matter. My position seems to assume the should is fundamentally separate from the is, that morality is a distinct entity from human nature. How do they, if at all, interact?
I've been interested in morality for about two years now. I was immoral much of the past.
Is something morally right because it just is or because God says it is? I borrowed this from Plato's Republic. The implication puts us in a dilemma of whether we are at the mercy of the whims of God or there is a need for a personal, interventionist supernatural being. I'm agnostic much of my life because the thought of a possible divine retribution was really scary. If God doesn't exist, why do we then still behave? But if we were to behave just because there is a sky police officer, doesn't it sound very pretentious? That we humans are nothing but opportunists in never-ending pursuit to break the law while not getting busted. The question whether God exists will be discussed in later entries.
I am curious of the possibilities of where we derive our morality from because I question the validity of any scriptures. Is it always sane to base our morality on the Kantian maxim so as to treat Man always as an end rather than a means? Is morality based on social contract? Is it just a matter of convenience? Arbitration of values? Is it an illusion? Or is it a perfectly natural occurrence in social species through a course of evolutionary changes? That something innate, that is animal instinct or drive, can give rise to it as observed in other social species like the lion or the wolf?
Is something morally right because it just is or because God says it is? I borrowed this from Plato's Republic. The implication puts us in a dilemma of whether we are at the mercy of the whims of God or there is a need for a personal, interventionist supernatural being. I'm agnostic much of my life because the thought of a possible divine retribution was really scary. If God doesn't exist, why do we then still behave? But if we were to behave just because there is a sky police officer, doesn't it sound very pretentious? That we humans are nothing but opportunists in never-ending pursuit to break the law while not getting busted. The question whether God exists will be discussed in later entries.
I am curious of the possibilities of where we derive our morality from because I question the validity of any scriptures. Is it always sane to base our morality on the Kantian maxim so as to treat Man always as an end rather than a means? Is morality based on social contract? Is it just a matter of convenience? Arbitration of values? Is it an illusion? Or is it a perfectly natural occurrence in social species through a course of evolutionary changes? That something innate, that is animal instinct or drive, can give rise to it as observed in other social species like the lion or the wolf?
Hi there. I made this account to sort out my thoughts and perhaps, understand myself better. I imagined my 1st entry'd be cooler than this but I guess that'll take work.
Many times when I talk to someone of a clashing view or doing some reflection, I always have that initial anxiety, that by the end of the conversation or the self criticism I'd be committed to change. It feels strange keeping a habit you deduce wrong. I guess it was something close to being courageous to be wrong and not allowing any changes. I have a knack for discovering virtue in almost everything.... that I do.
