Ive been thinking about this all day and I feel like talking about it.


Aristotle states that nature never act without a reason. For instance an orange. An orange can not fall upwards. Why? Science would say gravity. But philosophically you could say much more between the relationship of natures purpose and an organge.

It falls downward so its seeds can be spread to the ground. So just as gravity pulls the orange down, an orange also seeks the ground. Same thing about an oranges shape. Its circular. This allows it to find the lowest possible spot. An orange seeks to fall. Its not merely gravity.

That portion is actually from an episode of young idiana jones but bear with me.

So, we have established a premiss that "nature never acts without a reason." Heres whats been on my mind. A mother nurtures their young so that they can live and have children etc etc.. But going further into thought. A mother is a human. Humans are composed of flesh and bone (no need to go as far as cellular structure). So in that case flesh and bones "purpose" is to create and nurture more flesh and bone. Ive reasoned and propose it is all humans purpose to nurture each other. (This isnt a new idea, just the pjilosophy behind it is new and inspiring to me.)

The counter argument would be, what about enemys? I considered this question for a while until I came up with an answer. War is the result of greed on one end or all ends of a war. Greed is a sleight against nature since its flesh and bones purpose to nurture.

This brings up another question than I havnt thought out all the way. Survival is an obvious answer but Im not sure if its the only answer. My brain is kinda tired so if anyones interested in throwing out ideas please do. What is greeds usefull purpose when survival kills?

I fear that I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking how greed fits into Darwinian evolutionary survival of the fittest theory?

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Philosophy tends to deal with beliefs rather than things that can be proven. However, it isn't a matter of blind faith but one of applying our reason to the things we see and using it to understand and to some extent perceive what is beyond our ability to proove.

I don't believe in a Nature that acts using reason. I believe in a nature that acts according to natural laws put in place by a rational Prime Mover. An infinite, rational being makes more sense logically than infinite random matter. I believe the Big Bang was the first visible action of that Prime Mover.

What laws we see in nature were put there by that eternal rational entity prior to the Big Bang.

So, is the Prime Mover still active in the world, nerfing and buffing cards as needed?
Or has it been retired 15 (billion) years and living like a king in Patagonia?

Good question. Which is more rational and fits with the things we can observe?

If there is an active Prime Mover, can we see its actions in our world?
If there is a rational Prime Mover, is it rational to create a universe then do nothing with it?

Even the apparent chaos we see in nature is governed by natural laws that follow rational patterns which leads me to believe there is a rational Prime Mover. I believe a rational Prime Mover would interact with something it created.

However, if there is a rational Prime Mover interacting with the universe, those interactions are generally subtle since they are not something we indisputably observe everyday.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the Prime Mover either does not interact with the world, or interacts with it in ways that are too subtle to be observed.

This begs the question: what is the benefit in such an hypothesis? Assuming we understand the natural laws themselves, does this hypothesis add anything to our understanding of the world?

This is a good question. What would be the benefit of this hypothesis?

The prime mover is a good theory. You could go as far as saying greed is result of the forben fruit. You could easily fill a lot of gaps in any philosophy. Im attempting to rationalize without religion. I do believe in god but I dont understand god and this fuels my intrigue on the subject of philosophy and I dont want to allow any short cuts.

So the benefit of the prime mover theory is that you can fill any gaps you cant fully rationalize. You can find circumstancial evidence of a prime mover.

One player who didnt post said, "Greed isnt survival, survival is getting what you need. Greed is getting more than that." I agreed with it at the time but its impossible to gauge what is greed and what is survival.

I can only surmise that surival is the human way of over coming larger than earth obstacles. For instance 2012. Humans are the only known creature that has the intellgence/chance to over come a cataclismic event. I thereby revert back to my its the job of flesh to nurture flesh and say humans are meant to save not only humans but animals as well. Not only is it our job to take care of the animals, but its the animals job to provide food for the human. Which Im going to regard again to the bible in this post with a reference to "Noahs Arc."

Why does it have to be a 100% rational reason?

If the world was created by a Prime Mover that is beyond our comprehension, it is logical to assume that parts of the world and the way it works is beyond our comprehension.

The reverse of this logic is that, if the world and the way it works is completely within our logical comprehension, then the way it was created is also completely within our logical comprehension.

However, if the world and the way it works is beyond our comprehension, then it follows that the Creator is also beyond our comprehension.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Having not taken philosophy and only taken biology in college, the answer to the original question is easily explained by biology.
(The long answer is in Richard Dawkin's two books: the selfish gene and the blind watchmaker)
Essentially, if you look at things from the point of view of your genes, everything that all animals do (as a whole) serves to pass down one's genetic code.
We assist one another in the expectation that we will be helped in kind and thus strengthen our ability to reproduce and pass down our genes (i.e. give a girl a flower and hope she will fall in love with you, reproduce and make beautiful children)
We are greedy and go to war, in order to secure the maximum amount of resources (food, etc) for our children so that they can compete against other children and spread our genes at the expense of other genes.

In terms of another question (humans are the only species able to overcome a cataclysmic event in 2012), not true. Cockroaches are much better adapted to overcome a cataclysmic event. Cockroaches have not evolved in 300 million years. They are the ultimate survivors. They possibly survived a meteor crashed that wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago. They have much better radiation resistance than humans and other animals and are more likely to survive a nuclear holocaust. As smart as humans are, some people say cockroaches are better at driving a human out of a habitat then humans are able to drive a cockroach out of a habitat.

What bothers me is that you could easily use god to fill in any gaps, both scientifical or philisophical. Readilly doing that is illogical unless you had faith strong enough to suggest god is the sole component that makes electricity follow the path of least resistance. Note that this is different than saying electricity is an invention of god. This is saying god is constantly forcing nature to act a certain way.

Now we have created a break off philosophical religious possibilities that initialy lead to the same line of questions.

1: Is god constantly forcing nature to act a certain way? If so, what is gods motives for our nature?

2: Has god created nature to continually act a certain way? If so, What is our natures purpose?



Its not logical we were put on earth by a prime mover for no reason. So there is likely a 100% rational reason you are here if there is a prime mover. To be honest Id like to reason there is a prime mover. Dispite my belief in him, Id like to explain why. So far I can compare my chain of reasoning with a few parables in the bible. Theres little trails of proof (such as my reasoning in my prior post easily compared to noahs arc) if your not overly skeptical. One reason Im not too skeptical is because the bible says we were created from the earth. Strangely enough, there was an experiment where earth ancient atmosphere was recreated. Here is a very interesting link.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html