|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
posted April 27, 2001 06:35 AM |
|
|
Hehe,
I never thought that there will be a definite result.
Nice chat here, and that be enough for me.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted April 28, 2001 07:37 AM |
|
|
Another Long One
Wow this thread seems to be getting better and better….nice thoughts Jiels, Denfreni, and Zedrin in particular. Jiels….I appreciate the concise philosophical discourse that you are bringing to the table
Zedrin…yes I believe in an omnipotent being (God) but I do not agree with the logic that this annihilates free will…for we can freely chose to disregard what this omnipotent being wants us to do. Omnipotence does not necessarily mean that the one who is omnipotent can’t freely chose to limit their control. Nor does omnipotence seem to me to be equal to control. So if you are stating that control is omnipotence then I agree with your logic…but not the definitions that you are working with
Jiels said “Another way to converse is to always refute the other person. Never make or advance a claim. Always seek to prove the other person wrong by examining their beliefs. This is an acceptable way to debate philosophy.” And also stated “doesn't the fact that you have no absolutes mean you can't actually reach any kind of agreement with others?”-----great thoughts…I find them very pertinent
Jiel…I do take issue with your one comment about boundaries and freedom. There can be freedom with boundaries in my opinion…at least in the moral sense. We have freedom to respect boundaries/rules/natural laws and freedom to ignore them…granted the consequences of disregarding boundaries will usually follow (i.e. you are free to choose to ignore the natural law of gravity and jump off a building, but you are still going to have to face the consequences).
So in discussion of morality I think it is highly prudent to search for moral laws…cause if they follow the same course as most other rules/natural laws then there will be consequences. So we are free to chose one belief over another…but in the end that may not matter because only by finding the “true morality” or getting as close as possible are we able to either not have to face the natural consequences or deal with less negative consequences.
Again Jiels stated “I will propose that honour is any action that appeals to the moral sensibilities, the conscience if you will, of the viewer.”…a very nice definition btw but still disagreeable to me for Honor is only relegated to personal sensibilities if there is no absolute moral law to which we are attempting to find in one way or another. Personally I don’t believe in an individualist framework but believe in a theocentric world view which states there is an absolute moral law written in our hearts/conscience/mind/soul.
Denfreni I couldn’t agree more with your comment “If someone is saying everything is relative, just talk to him for a few minutes, and soon it becomes clear that he is inconsistent with his own beliefs”
Pluvious…you are obviously wrong…diet coke is better then coke…so go make a new thread Just kidding Does the way this thread is going irritate you? I can see your point…you must have an absolute belief that only topics directly related to TOH/heroes should continue…hehe (At least your not a relativist…lol)
|
|
pluvious
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2001 04:11 PM |
|
|
No the topic doesn't irritate me in the least...
I just have some experience in message boards and real-life conversations regarding philosophy/meaning of things. And I have come to the conclusion that (for me) some things in life you think about and hold close to you as beliefs and/or truths...while conversing about them actually takes away from the feeling of comfort they provide.
But sharing bits and pieces now and again I can certainly condone, especially if it is for the benefit of others and not for self-grandization or simple preaching.
____________
...Pluvious...
-The Storm Before the Calm-
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted April 28, 2001 07:06 PM |
|
|
Thought this thread was virtually dead, getting ready for state funerals.
But really, how can something be omnipotent if it isn't everywhere at all times and if it doesn't control everything. For if something is outside its control, then it is limited, not omnipotent. How can one recognize such control? If such a "being', a reality really, exists, then we never knew anything outside its control. So we can fantasize about free will all we want, but in the end all our decisions are controlled by such a "being". Whatever we think and do has already been planned in advance, weather we accept its existence or not.
Hey, I don't say I'm right(couldn't,shouldn't, mustn't), just my point of view.
Have fun.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
jiels
Adventuring Hero
LFM C'thun, pst.
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 06:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Thought this thread was virtually dead, getting ready for state funerals.
It's just getting started!
Quote:
But really, how can something be omnipotent if it isn't everywhere at all times and if it doesn't control everything.
Zedrin where are you getting this omnipotent and omniscient being from? The Bible, nor does God (in the Bible, no, he doesn't talk to me, sorry), state that God is omnipotent and omniscient. These are attributes applied to God by humanity. As you obviously know. I am just wondering why God is in this discussion. God and honor go together how again? If you are using that definition for the sake of this discussion then okay, but otherwise...
If we are going to argue philosophy, and I hope so, then maybe we should try to make clear what each word means to each other. Let's be clear on terms okay?
Quote:
Hey, I don't say I'm right(couldn't,shouldn't, mustn't), just my point of view.
That is all anyone can say. Of course to many of us ignore that and make silly absolutes. But thanks for the disclaimer Zedrin. I think the world would be a better place if more said what you just said.
____________
I miss my Ashjre'thul...
|
|
jiels
Adventuring Hero
LFM C'thun, pst.
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 06:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can all talk till the cows come home about what honour means i dont think it will achieve anything!
lol
You are probably right. But who cares? It is fun to try. Like many things in life.
____________
I miss my Ashjre'thul...
|
|
jiels
Adventuring Hero
LFM C'thun, pst.
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 07:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Jiels….I appreciate the concise philosophical discourse that you are bringing to the table
Your have to be joking. I just took three philo (Intro, epistemology, and medival) classes this semester and the concepts and ideas are still floating around in my brain. I think I fooled you by being able to write like a prof. Defreni would be the guy we should look to for "comcise philosophical discourse."
Quote:
yes I believe in an omnipotent being (God) but I do not agree with the logic that this annihilates free will…for we can freely chose to disregard what this omnipotent being wants us to do. So if you are stating that control is omnipotence then I agree with your logic…but not the definitions that you are working with
Ahh, so here is where we get God into the discussion. I have been working to hard lately. I agree, let's come to some definition of God that we can all agree on before we conitinue our dicussion of honour.
Quote:
There can be freedom with boundaries in my opinion…at least in the moral sense. We have freedom to respect boundaries/rules/natural laws and freedom to ignore them…granted the consequences of disregarding boundaries will usually follow
Hmm, I have to think about this. I think DArgon that our definitions of freedom are not in sync. Yes, consequences arise out of actions but are those actions free? I cannot make a "free" (uninfluenced or unaffected) choice if I have some idea of the consequence.
Quote:
So in discussion of morality I think it is highly prudent to search for moral laws…cause if they follow the same course as most other rules/natural laws then there will be consequences. So we are free to chose one belief over another…but in the end that may not matter because only by finding the “true morality” or getting as close as possible are we able to either not have to face the natural consequences or deal with less negative consequences.
Again Jiels stated “I will propose that honour is any action that appeals to the moral sensibilities, the conscience if you will, of the viewer.”…a very nice definition btw but still disagreeable to me for Honor is only relegated to personal sensibilities if there is no absolute moral law to which we are attempting to find in one way or another. Personally I don’t believe in an individualist framework but believe in a theocentric world view which states there is an absolute moral law written in our hearts/conscience/mind/soul.
I'm afraid I have to go to sleep now (gotta be up in 4hrs) and as a result I am going to cheat for a moment. DArgon why do you beleive this? Divine revelation, enlighted thought, personal experience...what?
I have so much more I want to say in response to the thoughts of Pluvious, DArgon, Zedrin, Shae and Defreni but my real life beckons. Hopefully time will magically appear and allow me to respond.
____________
I miss my Ashjre'thul...
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 07:45 AM |
|
|
What more can i say but Lol
But really, isn't God suposed to be a superior being?
How can he be superior if he is limited? Then he is a false God, just a being with superior technology perhaps...
Everythin limited by matter is in a sense equal, since it all brakes down into the same building blocks.
Burp.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 11:21 AM |
|
|
Same question, but still no answer
Gods are supposed to be omnipotent, all powerful and all seeing. If you truly had a being like this, a being so powerful that the existence of the universe as we know it would be owed to him, then you haven't really answered much.
Who created God and why does He exist?
Whatever you come up with, I think you can ask the same of the creator of god.
If you come up with the 'God has always existed' argument then that argument could apply to the universe too couldn't it? If if that argument applies to the universe as well, then the whole concept of an @ss-kicker who created the universe is well....
redundant?
But what the hell does god have to do with a concept like honour?
*smile*
|
|
a920076
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 03:24 PM |
|
|
Honor = Reward
Honor is nothing but a kind of reward system,.or encouraging
system.
Granted to the any man of good example
but.. when having no material reward to give him..
so.. give him some fame instead of material rewards..
That's the HONOR in my thought..
To whom we give this reward??
-> to any personel contributing on some of community.
why give him the reward?
-> to show some good example to community members.
and to encourage people to certain positive directions
and.. others..
-> the more..people got reward..
the less this reward's Valueness (in other
word..it's Honor) is decreased .
-> so, Honor shud be something precious..
=> Scarcity and Rewarding is a necessary and sufficient condition for HONOR
=> and in most cases, Honor is prefered as rewarding
method when any money or material prize is not provided.
In my thoght, for TOH community.
Honor shud be granted to any personel with
Great sportsmanship or not clinging to win/loss.
That will be good mirror to the dirty players and
contribute on this tourny's health. as i already wrote
down in thread of title "Honorable people/ case"
ps. sorry for poor English. (but no matter how..
I could win some money at Lasvegas last week,.
Nice city/ nice machine - wheel of fortune )
Now i'm back home in seoul.
|
|
pluvious
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 03:31 PM |
|
|
You may not speak great English but you know what honor is. Not sure why people make it so complicated or out to be more than it really is.
____________
...Pluvious...
-The Storm Before the Calm-
|
|
a920076
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 03:38 PM |
|
|
Even Cheater could be Honorable
If if this tourney members were all in lack of desire for
victory or point.
Paradoxically speaking..
player strong cling to the victory.. for examples..
cheaters,.quitters..
could be good model for enervate members.
In some country. birth many babies are sin.
while in others, birth is encouraged.
for some tribes, fatty is symbol of rich, wealthy, beauty, good personality, even high social status.
while for others. fatty is only a ugly,lack in self-control,
even a failure.
|
|
jiels
Adventuring Hero
LFM C'thun, pst.
|
posted April 30, 2001 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You may not speak great English but you know what honor is. Not sure why people make it so complicated or out to be more than it really is.
But it is it really that simple Pluvious? For me, Honor in Homm must be more then a reward or fame as a result of good play. Yes, that is definately part of honor in Toh but there is something more to it, I think. Many people in Toh gain fame just for being colonels or winners of sub tournaments, that does not make them honorable. Sure if they are that good they are probably honorable but there has to be more than just that.
For me, honor in Homm is rooted in a commitment to fun and fair play. To expand my idea I will say that an honorable player will sacrifice their own enjoyment for the enjoyment of the other player. Mocara stating that he will play with rules if his opponent wants to is a good example of my idea. This is seen in many examples in the Honorable players thread as well.
But to offer up my own example of what I mean: I am in the middle of a game with Monty Carlton(The Old One) and it is still in month one. By mistake, I went through a one way portal with my main (am I stupid or what) and ended up in unfamiliar territory. Monty writes to me that he is sorry but he is going to kill my main. He explains that he is enjoying the game but he cannot let my main walk around his land. So he attacks me and I retreat. Now what makes this an honorable play, in my mind, is the concern he expressed for my enjoyment. If he had just attacked my main without saying anything I would not have minded as I expect that when trespassing. But the fact that he took the time to talk and express his thoughts brought my enjoyment of the game up. It is much more fun now because we both realize that we are more interested in having fun than winning.
Honor is all about self sacrifice and a commitment to certain principles. If a person does not appear to have this then they do not seem very honorable to me. That does not make anyone a bad person or anything just that there is a sense they are more caught up in their own little games or points or rank. And that you, their opponent, is little more than a notch in the bedpost. This does not seem honorable to me.
Of course this is just how I would explain honor in Homm and Toh. Does it make sense? It would seem to be made up of honesty, compassion, sympathy, and competiveness.
____________
I miss my Ashjre'thul...
|
|
pluvious
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 12:28 AM |
|
|
Jiels,
I agree with what many people have interpreted as "honor", including your fair play and compassion definition.
However, I appreciated the above post where the concept of honor as a community reward was brought forth. This is an excellent analysis if I have understood him correctly. My main point as I have stated several times is that honor is something you seak to obtain because you live in a community of some kind. And that honor is a reward in and of itself. You are seen as honorable and that brings satisfaction. It is what you desire to be.
You this as an example: What kind of honor would a hermit who lived only amoung animals his whole life have? It is likely that he would be more animal than human, and his "honor" would be very different than yours or mine.
But that is not really the point. The main thing I wanted to emphasize is that honor has a defination in our society, and a common interpretation. That is to be respected within a public framework for your actions. Think of the word's orgins in terms of its use in civic pride and the military. It is to think highly of...whether this be a single individual or a community.
Anyway, I havn't seen anyone say something that honor is not, but personally I believe this to be an important point to consider if you are considering honor and how it relates to your actions.
____________
...Pluvious...
-The Storm Before the Calm-
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted May 01, 2001 08:12 AM |
|
|
Honor, moral relativism, etc:)
Zedrin…I agree…I do not believe a superior being can be limited outside of themselves…but I do believe an omnipotent being can be SELF limiting. Thus they CAN control everything, but choose to NOT exercise absolute control. I think that is the big difference. Also as stated earlier I do not think that an omnipotent being means that they have to control everything. I ascribe to a belief in a benevolent and caring omnipotent being.
On a side note I find it interesting that most people who claim to believe in free will and are atheists have a very difficult hand to play. Cause if the atheist believes that we were created from an evolutionary force then there is truly no free will. If we are merely products of evolution then we are driven by this force and have very little influence of who we are or what humanity will become. We basically are forced to submit to the survival of the fittest with our number one goal being self preservation. Free will thus seems to become nothing but a concept.
Jiels stated “God and honor go together how again?”. I can only speak personally….God has everything to do with honor for me as I believe that honor is an internal characteristic that is displayed through relationship (love your neighbor, serve others, be trustworthy, care for others, live life fully, live up to duty/obligation, make a commitment to a moral code, treat others as you would wish to be treated, etc). So if God/omnipotent being wants me to act a certain way then I am acting honorably when I do so. For those that don’t ascribe to an omnipotent being then honor would most likely be a behavior that is in accord with group conscience or societal norms.
Jiels I tend to call your definition of free will “Radical Free Will”. So you are correct that radical free will does not allow itself to be influenced by anything (boundaries, consequences, limits, etc). I ascribe to a more moderate concept of free will since we are humans and constantly influenced by and influencing our environment.
To answer your question about my theocentric world view…it comes first by divine revelation (in my opinion the Bible) and is informed by my studies in philosophy and comparative religion and personal experience.
Jiels I like part of your description about what is honor …“Honor is all about self sacrifice and a commitment to certain principles”
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 09:14 AM |
|
|
Agreed Dargon, an omnipotent Being should have the choice of noninterference, of self-limitation. But that would mean that such a being would have a consciousness... and isn't that another built in limit?
That is not my point of view, just analyzing a bit(my point of view is too strange even for me).
About honor being a reward. Wouldn't that cause hypocrisy?
I mean, being honorable only when people can see, so that this "reward" is bestowed upon you.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
thecastrated
Famous Hero
|
posted May 01, 2001 09:27 AM |
|
|
Honour
I will define honour as that of generally ensuring that your opponent as having the chance of winning of at least that of what was before the game, conventionally agreed, and when this cant b done, count the game as aborted if your opponent wishes. For example, say in a game u discovered that u had an outdated version of the map which added just 1 extra art. You should inform your opponent. If he now agrees to play on, then doing so wouldn’t count you as unhonourable; its as though this new convention ,that of playing an outdated map, will be one he would have agreed to prior to the game.
A peculiar situation may arise whereby what was conventionally agreed may b disputed as whether its really so. For example, on criss cross, certain people may not know that its possible to purchase heroes on ally’s side. I usually will tell/remind newbies of these, but others in my situation may just say that its their fault that they do not know this advantageous possibility. In such cases the question will be: do you regard this ‘knowledge’ as to be expected, and hence the chance is still ‘equal’ at the beginning of the game, just that your opponent did the stupid thing of not utilising the advantage, or whether you regard this knowledge to be rare and not informing your opponent will count as not ensuring the 50% chance its conventionally agreed upon(Not taking into account of skill level yet) to win.
Another example will be a case I had encountered. My famous (but I will list him as anonymous here) opponent and I agreed to no hit n run, specifically defined as defender not surrendering before round2, and that we have to have cast the same number of magic before surrendering/retreating. Then in the game, a battle ensued where by both rules were abided upon, and yet he still claims that its hit and run(bp,pk and you all may judge whether it is or not;Jinxer agreed that the sole criterion of not hit and run will be having both players having cast the same number of magic, while jb’s was that it technically wasn’t hit and run, not to mention that I had lost 4 of my 5 dragons in the battle). We played on and he lost.
Thereafter a huge quibble ensued, and he even got it discussed in the zone and kept calling me unhonourable(???) If the question of honour were to be raised, it will be: Have I decreased his chances of winning, that is, by agreeing to the rule(s) and hence limiting his plan by excluding that possible option of his doing the same thing I did or that I have simply agreed and abided to the rules he himself suggested and yet he is now just whining. In any case, after he seemed so insistent, for whatever reason that that was hit and run, I gave him the benefit of the ‘undoubt’ and told him to not report.
As a sidenote, he still calls me unhonourable despite we both not reporting that game(!@#$!).
Ya..the main points..you may then ask, say in gambling, where u have only 20% odds of wining, or that in a game, with you having sea captain’s hat as the relic, wouldn’t your chances be reduced? But the chances of wining in these cases were conventionally agreed prior to the game; in a 2diced game of whether the total will be 7and above or not, if 1die were to have stopped at 6, you cant argue that the remaining game is decided by that the remianing die hav to be judged on whether it is 1-3 or 4-6, to give you an equal chance, since the game is in process now; prior to it, both parties have agreed and honoured the convention.
|
|
thecastrated
Famous Hero
|
posted May 01, 2001 09:31 AM |
|
|
God doesnt exist
For the argument whether god exists or not, I have posted a prove on Singapore Mensa that ‘it’ doesn’t, yet to be refuted by any members.
Briefly stated: If there were 2 identical persons in an identical scenario, their decisions will be the identical wont they? Then if you place 2 random persons in a situation, what can cause their decision to be different? Only that their life experiences and genes are different. Since these 2 cant be ‘chosen’ by anyone, how can any god judge any1 based on these? If freewill do exist, cant you still see that 2 identical persons may not choose the same things anymore, which is downright absurd. In any case, if ‘freewill’ is a thing which causes people to do things by chance, then how can god/it judge people based on this chance, which people themselves again have no control over.
____________
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 09:49 AM |
|
|
Hehe, you seem to miss a point... If God exists then "chance" does not exist. Everything has been preordained. What to us appears as chance is in fact a kind of "logic" beyond ours, perhaps not even a conscious logic but a simple"reality","existence".
Our choices are indeed affected by genes, experiences and degree of preconcieved ideas that we have been inoculated with, only if a God does not exist.
For if we are controlled, that would never be aparrent to us, since then we would be obsessed with eluding,escaping that form of authority.
Man, i write too much.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
thecastrated
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 10:13 AM |
|
|
God
Yeah, so something,whatever, already ordinates us, planned for us. Take for instance at a certain instantaneous point in time. what were to happen 1 sec thereafter will still happen 1 sec thereafter, for the identical situation. So this 'fate' ,is something which was planed by supreme being, not us. And its stated in the bible that god was 'Angry' wif moses or something. Cant you see a human concept here? Y will he be angry then, Since fate already arranged moses to sin, or man to sin so that they will suffer in hell eternally thereafter.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
