Philosophy... What do You Think?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

I decided to make this thread because philosophy is an interesting subject,with alot of potential for good discussion.Since alot of threads that primarily involve philosophical topics turn into religious threads,I thought a thread dedicated to discussing philosophical topics was a good idea.

Avatar image for pyrogram
Pyrogram

46545

Forum Posts

13113

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By Pyrogram

I like it, but do not get too focused on it..

Avatar image for decoy_elite
Decoy Elite

30159

Forum Posts

1875

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 4

#3  Edited By Decoy Elite

I find it interesting, although I've never really talked about it much.

Avatar image for supremehyperion
SupremeHyperion

1811

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 12

#4  Edited By SupremeHyperion

Ooh Philoshophy..... I'll have to think about it

Avatar image for fadetoblackbolt
FadeToBlackBolt

23389

Forum Posts

8725

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 6

#5  Edited By FadeToBlackBolt

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism.  
 
And absurdism, of course <3

Avatar image for deadpoolrules
deadpoolrules

4817

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#6  Edited By deadpoolrules

Its kinda cool.

Avatar image for magian
Magian

153614

Forum Posts

925

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 11

#7  Edited By Magian  Online

Was never really a big philosophy fan. Which is weird because I was doing rather well in that philosophy class back in highschool lol But anyway, while I do think that the things it deals with are interesting, sometimes I feel like things just get too overanalysed.

Avatar image for doom_doom_doom
DoomDoomDoom

4403

Forum Posts

33212

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 10

#8  Edited By DoomDoomDoom

I got my bachelors in applied philosophy(ethics). Unless your heart is really in it I wouldn't suggest majoring in philosophy. I think everyone should have a course in logic and ethics but majoring in the field doesn't really set you up for anything other than going for that masters or doctorate degree. If I had a do over I'd have gone for something a little more practical and maybe minored in philosophy or just kept it as a hobby/interest.

Favorite Philosophers: Kirkegaard and Sartre.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

Avatar image for fadetoblackbolt
FadeToBlackBolt

23389

Forum Posts

8725

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 6

#10  Edited By FadeToBlackBolt
@mrdecepticonleader said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

That's Existentialism then :P
Avatar image for sesquipedalophobe
sesquipedalophobe

5417

Forum Posts

27

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I read the collective writings of Nietzsche when I was thirteen, but that's about it. I'm too simple for some subjects.

Avatar image for stevens61310
Stevens61310

196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Stevens61310

I think having a thread devoted to philosophy would be interesting. The issue is that in my opinion everyone has a philosophy of life. And I think most people are unaware that they do. Furthermore most people's philosophy of life is entwined with religion and even politics so you are going to have the inevitable detours into both areas. But mostly I think for this thread to survive you will have to actually state specific questions or point of views. Just having a thread that says "OK . Philosophy--discuss." will eventually die out because of how vague the topic is.

Avatar image for the_stegman
the_stegman

40518

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#13  Edited By the_stegman  Moderator

It's my favorite subject.

Avatar image for glitch_spawn
Glitch_Spawn

17181

Forum Posts

865

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Glitch_Spawn

@sesquipedalophobe said:

I read the collective writings of Nietzsche when I was thirteen, but that's about it. I'm too simple for some subjects.

Wow young age to be reading Nietzsche lol

Avatar image for 7am_waking_up_in_the_morning
7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning

3947

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

Avatar image for vortex13
Vortex13

12140

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Vortex13

I'd say that philosophical discussions can stray away from actual works of philosophy. The subject encompass a great deal that does not have to be restricted in my opinion just to previously stated ideas.

Avatar image for sesquipedalophobe
sesquipedalophobe

5417

Forum Posts

27

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Glitch_Spawn said:

@sesquipedalophobe said:

I read the collective writings of Nietzsche when I was thirteen, but that's about it. I'm too simple for some subjects.

Wow young age to be reading Nietzsche lol

Yeah, my twenty-something-year-old brother let me borrow it because he thought I needed to expand my vocabulary, that I needed to open my eyes. I thought most of his works were pretentious. I should have read a dictionary instead.

Avatar image for soduh2
soduh2

1078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#19  Edited By soduh2

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

Avatar image for innerassassin
InnerAssassin

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By InnerAssassin

@The Stegman said:

It's my favorite subject.
Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@soduh2 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

As I said I dont want this to become another thread about religion there already threads for that.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

That's Existentialism then :P

Okay...

Avatar image for trueilluminatus
TrueIlluminatus

9579

Forum Posts

18169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By TrueIlluminatus

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: 
 
Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. 
 
Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression.  
 
You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators.  
 
There are no caveats you can make.

Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@soduh2 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

Christianity - This was supposed to be a philosophy as Christ has established it. No dogmas except for the belief in Christ as a saviour and doing good deeds to your fellows. Early Christians were like that. A more liberal sect of Judaism so to speak. Belief in a one god without the constricting laws. Yes they still did the feasts and the meals and all those but all were only in terms of givnig memory. Not as acts of dogmatic righteousness. Then came Paul/Saul and it became a religion full of doctrines and dogmas and all that. So in a way, O'Reilly is correct. Christianity was meant top be philosophy. But he is certainly pertaining to the Christianity of today (him being an evangelical after all) and so I am inclined to believe it's a sort of scapegoat bs from him to move away from the negative stereotype given to religion.

Christology - Study of Christ. Nature of Jesus. Godhood or personhood of Jesus. Etc. It is concerned more about the person rather than the teachings. It is to be noted that not all Christologists are Christians. I've seen atheists Christologists, Muslim Christologists, etc. You don't really have to submit to the doctrine of the church to study the man, whether it be by historicity or by his rendition on the gospels.

Christendom - The christian world. In a modern context, as stated earlier, Christianity is the religion. Christendom refers to the community. Let's just say Christianity is to constitutioin as Christendom is to State/or Kingdom for easier comparison.

Avatar image for trueilluminatus
TrueIlluminatus

9579

Forum Posts

18169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By TrueIlluminatus

The earliest forms of Christianity was a philosophy. Only later did it become a religion. 

Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

Avatar image for trueilluminatus
TrueIlluminatus

9579

Forum Posts

18169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By TrueIlluminatus
@spetsnaz_gru said:

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

Marx's beard devours them both. 
Avatar image for decoy_elite
Decoy Elite

30159

Forum Posts

1875

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 4

#27  Edited By Decoy Elite
@Illuminatus: Interesting... 
I'd say let the AIs live, if possible try and bring their weaponry down a bit so that they don't wipe the organics out if fighting starts back up. I mean, if they really are free thinking then they deserve a chance.  
Although with a machine as dangerous as that I'd probably want a fail safe if it's not 100% possible that they'll develop free thinking thought. 
Hope I read your post right...
Avatar image for trueilluminatus
TrueIlluminatus

9579

Forum Posts

18169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By TrueIlluminatus
@Decoy Elite: Like I said, there are no caveats. If you let the AI's live, then you can't interfere in their destinies further, and this includes trying to stop them from developing more weapons.  
Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@Illuminatus said:

The earliest forms of Christianity was a philosophy. Only later did it become a religion.

Exactly!

Marx's beard devours them both.

Ha! Kant's forehead is way too big to be devoured by Marx's beard.

Avatar image for xanni15
Xanni15

6791

Forum Posts

36572

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

#30  Edited By Xanni15

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

Avatar image for decoy_elite
Decoy Elite

30159

Forum Posts

1875

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 4

#31  Edited By Decoy Elite
@Illuminatus: Hmm...then I still let the AIs live. I don't think I have what it takes to kill an entire possibly free thinking species.
Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Asimovian philosophy! Nice! I don't have an answer BTW. Too hard of a choice.

Avatar image for trueilluminatus
TrueIlluminatus

9579

Forum Posts

18169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By TrueIlluminatus
@Xanni15 said:

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

I never said that the organics in question were human. :p  
 
However, you as a human being will be the mediator. 
Avatar image for robocopslayert800
RobocopSlayerT800

2345

Forum Posts

-100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I never thought it'd be something i'd be to good at.

Avatar image for xanni15
Xanni15

6791

Forum Posts

36572

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By Xanni15

@Illuminatus said:

@Xanni15 said:

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

I never said that the organics in question were human. :p However, you as a human being will be the mediator.

AH!

Well, substitute "organics" for "humans." ;)

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@Illuminatus said:

@spetsnaz_gru said:

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

Marx's beard devours them both.

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Interesting scenario.

Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@mrdecepticonleader said:

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

I know I wasn't the one asked but I'll answer anyway. Marx, for me, was too ambitious and overlooked the corruption of the masses had they been given the power over the few. I like Marx's socialism and I believe, in an ideal world, it would have worked. Unfortunately, his teachings are on of the ideologies that are very susceptible to the manipulation of the corrupt.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@spetsnaz_gru said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

I know I wasn't the one asked but I'll answer anyway. Marx, for me, was too ambitious and overlooked the corruption of the masses had they been given the power over the few. I like Marx's socialism and I believe, in an ideal world, it would have worked. Unfortunately, his teachings are on of the ideologies that are very susceptible to the manipulation of the corrupt.

I do see what you mean,I mean he only contended that there where two classes and groups of people,whereas society has always been more complex than that.Also if I recall correctly he had a view that history could be predicated and that certain events would eventually lead to the ideal society he had in mind,which again is open to criticism.

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

Avatar image for tranquil
Tranquil

3878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By Tranquil

What is philosophy?

Avatar image for minigunman123
minigunman123

3262

Forum Posts

558

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By minigunman123

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Destroy the machines.

Easy peasy.

Avatar image for soduh2
soduh2

1078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#41  Edited By soduh2

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

Exactly. I mean, for example, Marx hated the idea of religion but those guys, especially Mao, diefied themselves. I don't want to throw away religion as I am a faithful, myself. But I would prefer a fully secular society over one that masquerades as secular but with pseudo-godheads to replace them.

Avatar image for armiv2
ARMIV2

10074

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By ARMIV2

Philosophy is great as a whole, but individual bits from individual minds get you different answers all the time.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@soduh2 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

Okay that was my point.Since philosophy is a broad enough subject to discuss without having to include religion as well.

@spetsnaz_gru said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

Exactly. I mean, for example, Marx hated the idea of religion but those guys, especially Mao, diefied themselves. I don't want to throw away religion as I am a faithful, myself. But I would prefer a fully secular society over one that masquerades as secular but with pseudo-godheads to replace them.

Yeah that is true.Alot of people tend to think communism is what we see in countries like North Korea and China but it couldn't be any further away from that.

See regarding religion that is where I really agree with Marx as well.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@Tranquil said:

What is philosophy?

Good question

  1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
  2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

Maybe this might help.

Avatar image for tranquil
Tranquil

3878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By Tranquil

So it encapsules sociology as well as psychology?

Avatar image for spetsnaz_gru
spetsnaz_gru

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By spetsnaz_gru

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@soduh2 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

Okay that was my point.Since philosophy is a broad enough subject to discuss without having to include religion as well.

I've been constantly violating this OP rule, huh? My bad. I'll refrain from discussing religion then.

Avatar image for agent9149
Agent9149

3627

Forum Posts

461

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#48  Edited By Agent9149

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

This is from mass effect.

And I chose to let the quarians die. They made their choice so they must face the consequences.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19691

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@Tranquil said:

So it encapsules sociology as well as psychology?

Yeah I suppose so.

@ARMIV2 said:

Philosophy is great as a whole, but individual bits from individual minds get you different answers all the time.

Well that is part of the point.It contends with asking the big questions and different philosophers may interpret them differently.So alot of it is on you to decide.

Avatar image for innervenom123
InnerVenom123

29886

Forum Posts

1786

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#50  Edited By InnerVenom123

Why?