Leave a comment

Comments 7

perspexed December 23 2004, 02:15:14 UTC
I think its well written, as for what its arguing or suggesting, i'm not entirely clear ( ... )

Reply

kitt3h December 23 2004, 04:51:21 UTC
The last implication being that if we can tell the future through the laws of cause and effect, we really have no free will to act in a different way. Just causes and effects, stretching back to who knows where or when. Thats a different question entirely.

we actually discussed fate in this community a while back. or free will. something like that. a couple of interesting things were brought up there, as well

but one thing you'd have to consider when predicting the future is that in order to determine every single cause, you would have to be able to quantify every single bit of data, which takes into account literally an *infinite* number of variables, most of which we couldn't even fathom (for example, if alternate dimensions existed, we'd have to take those into account as well, but we very well couldn't if we didn't know for sure they existed)

so yeah, i follow the whole 'life is orderly' bit, but in reality, our minds could never, in an unelightened state, fathom that order.

Reply

mr_uncreative December 24 2004, 08:39:52 UTC
you wouldn't necessarily need an infinite number of data types and variables. just enough to create a significant conclusion with ( ... )

Reply


Quite Pleased drwinkles December 23 2004, 04:56:50 UTC
Well, I must say that I'm impressed. The various analyses of this quote (two thus far) are in-depth and introspective.

I seem to be among intellectual superiors here. At very least, equals.

Reply


mr_uncreative December 24 2004, 08:29:34 UTC
is this a passage from Rage? the King book about the kid who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage while he told everyone of his psychosis? interesting book.

my opinion of the passage: I think that the author's trying to say that logic and sanity are subjective. that logic and sanity depend on one's perspective, not some universal standard. everyone has their own basis of what's logical and what's sane, which the author touches upon in the second to last paragraph (where he talks about "psychos" and murderers). when he makes the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde reference, he's simply relating to how there are people with backwards, opposite bases for logic and sanity compared to our own, sort of like a ying and yang relationship.

think about it, everyone has their own sense of logic, as well as their own unique definition of sanity, it would reason that different people would have conflicting definitions that are opposite in nature.

...but that's just my logic.

Reply

mr_uncreative December 24 2004, 08:43:58 UTC
Tool is Awesome.

Reply

my oppinion twisting_you December 29 2004, 23:18:52 UTC
i believe there is no cuch thing as sanity
we are all quite insane in one way or another, in different levels

also, Nothing in this world is as ruled by the simple "logic" of cause and effect
there is no such thing as "if this happens, then this will happen"

I agree with the idea that there are infinite possibiliteis for everything and that we may be able to merely trace patterns, but won't ever be able to get the exact answer
not even science is as exact and subjective

Reply


Leave a comment

Up