= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bound_up comments on Disguised Queries - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
Indeed.
For example:
I think that Jesus' response is a non sequitur (a well designed one (by using a technique similar to equivocation), which is why it makes for such good "blocking" technique). So there's no disguised query, since Jesus isn't querying at all, he's just trying to "win" the argument.
There is a similarity between Christians and many atheists in their moral philosophy, however. Atheists may not believe in God, but I think they mostly adhere to the 10 commandments.
At least Christians can say they follow their moral philosophy because God told them so. What reason do atheists have?
Christians allegedly follow the commandments because God told them to. They do what God told them to because of desire to avoid punishment, desire to obtain reward, desire to fulfill their perceived duty, or desire to express their love. They fulfill these desires because it makes them feel good/happy.
Atheists do whatever they do, most of them for the same reason, cut out the idea of it being centered around a personality who effects their happiness.
Harry said he preferred achieving things over happiness, but I can't help thinking that if he had sacrificed his potential, he wouldn't really have been happy about it, no matter how many friends he had.
At the end of the day, happiness drives at least most people, and in theory, all (when they make their decisions through careful consideration, and not just to fulfill some role or habit. As we know, this is rare, and in reality, most people can not trace their decisions' motivation to their happiness or anyone's, or to any other consistent value; so I opine).
That sounds like a hidden tautology-by-definition. What is happiness? That which people act to obtain. Why do people act? To obtain happiness. Whatever someone does, you can say after the fact that they did it to make themselves happy.
It is a state of mind. So saying that someone is driven by happiness is not tautological -- it means that they have a perceptually determined utility function.
I think Plastic's got it.
I don't think happiness is defined as whatever people act to obtain. It's something most people fail at with some regularity.
I mean, just look at Elsa, yah?
Er, Elsa? Um, what?
Precisely!
Full of noble desires, and of self-destructive means to achieve them.
Her efforts for happiness are wonderfully demonstrative of the failure systemic to like efforts conceived in ignorance.