The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Regarding the existence of an absolute ethical metric, you have to ask what you think ethics are. An ethical system is the mapping of value judgements to certain social interactions. But the only things with the ability to place value judgements on social interactions are individuals with complex enough brains. Certainly not inanimate objects or more primative animals, etc. So ethical metrics are dependent upon each individual's brain. So there is no absolute ethical metric unless all individuals have the same ethical metric (a deity puts a "conscience" into everyone, etc.).
If a deity exists, It can place value judgements on social interactions too. But that hardly means that Its value judgements are "correct," while all others are "false." You must assume that Its ethical metric is correct to establish that it's correct. Thus, the metric is no longer absolute.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Originally posted by Frogger
Other questions impossible to answer: positivism, realism, theism, etc.
You see a pattern? Every last fundamental divide of philosophy.
Philosophical questions are rather easy to unravel to their lowest point, and beyond that is a question of belief, not reason.
Certainly, several lines of thought coexist in philosophy at any given time. It has always been like this, and it will always be (unless the absolute truth is reached, which is impossible). Which line you adhere to is a question of belief and taste. However what makes philosophy a science is the following circumstance: these lines of thought evolve, some views die out within each line. So it's not a complete arbitrariness. At any given time, only those views survive that are reasonably not in contradiction with the world picture given by sciences. However, this doesn't mean that these views may not contradict to each other.
There is an absolut metric, and it's mine. Everybody else is just deluded (apart from the uncertainties I acknowledge in my ethics...on those other people's opinions are welcome and slightly more valid)
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
However what makes philosophy a science is the following circumstance: these lines of thought evolve, some views die out within each line
The question is why they die out. My contention is that generally it's just because people stop believing in them because they fall out of fashion, not because there's been any argument that disproves them.
To be a science they would have to rely on some slightly more objective evidence like science does. To be mathematics they would have to practice a great deal more formalism in their reasoning. As it stands they are neither, and have demonstrated it by going in circles for 2500 years.
Originally posted by Frogger
There is an absolut metric
Are you a fan of Absolut?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I never expected to have you as an ally on this issue.
I do bear in mind, though, that your support stems from an assumption you do not agree with (morally speaking)
I am not ceartin where I would be (disregarding my disagreement with the practice of abortion for social reasons)
but it is interesting to play out your side
Jon Miller
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
By not agreeing? The women is the only one to make the decision. There is no agreement. Her decision should be based on whether she wants the child or not, not whether the father wants to have the financial responsibilty.
She's the only one to make the decision on the abortion. She shouldn't be the only one to be able to make the decision on whether she will support the child.
Her decision should be based on whether or not she wants the responsibility, just like the father's is.
She shouldn't have to take on the fathers responsibility just because she doesn't want an abotion. There are consequences for abotions. They can cause emotional trauma, especially if the women didn't want it but made the wrong decision.
Originally posted by Frogger
Now compare this to the analogy I gave you ages ago. The woman has every right to decide whether or not she'll submit to modern medicine, but the man driving the car should have no responsibility to financially support her decision to forego the cheaper safe alternative in exchange for the expensive trip.
An abortion does not qualify as medicine in the same way that you are considering it to be. It's not a necessary proceedure. A women should not have to agree to take on a mans financial responsibility just because she doesn't want to have an abortion.
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui
There is an absolut metric, and it's mine. Everybody else is just deluded (apart from the uncertainties I acknowledge in my ethics...on those other people's opinions are welcome and slightly more valid)
But you can't make any assumptions for it to be absolute. Of course, there is a correct ethical metric and it is mine.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
She shouldn't have to take on the fathers responsibility just because she doesn't want an abotion. There are consequences for abotions. They can cause emotional trauma, especially if the women didn't want it but made the wrong decision.
There can be emotional traumas for the woman who visits the evil modern doctor simply because she has to bear the financial burden should she choose the more expensive option. Tough.
An abortion does not qualify as medicine in the same way that you are considering it to be. It's not a necessary proceedure. A women should not have to agree to take on a mans financial responsibility just because she doesn't want to have an abortion.
Really. Think it through. Rewrite the analogy: you hit the woman, she gets a cut that scars on her face. She was a model. She doesn't believe in modern medicine. She sues you for lost earnings from her modelling career worth 200 000$, but she could avoid these losses by getting a safe, 400$ surgery done to remove the scar. Now to make it more realistic make sure you include that you and her are both at equal fault for the accident.
However what makes philosophy a science is the following circumstance: these lines of thought evolve, some views die out within each line
The question is why they die out. My contention is that generally it's just because people stop believing in them because they fall out of fashion, not because there's been any argument that disproves them.
You know, even the Catholic Church has been forced to revise some of its view, and interpretations of the Bible. And the reason for that was not just a "fashion". It was done under the pressure of scientific evidence.
To be a science they would have to rely on some slightly more objective evidence like science does. To be mathematics they would have to practice a great deal more formalism in their reasoning.
Philosophy is not mathematics, it's not an exact science at all. Thus it's not surprising that the methods of reasoning are different.
As it stands they are neither, and have demonstrated it by going in circles for 2500 years.
Not in circles! Each time the circle repeats itself on a higher level. Thus it's a spiral. This is the third law of dialectics (Gegel).
You know, even the Catholic Church has been forced to revise some of its view, and interpretations of the Bible. And the reason for that was not just a "fashion". It was done under the pressure of scientific evidence.
So a philosophy that says the Earth is the centre of the Universe has been disproven? Congratulations. I don't know about you, but in my mind this proves the utility of science, not philosophy.
In order to be progressing philosophy would have to correct itself.
Philosophy is not mathematics, it's not an exact science at all. Thus it's not surprising that the methods of reasoning are different.
And it's not surprising that it ends up being futile when the concepts you deal with are so difficult to define that every argument boils down to one of definition.
Not in circles! Each time the circle repeats itself on a higher level. Thus it's a spiral. This is the third law of dialectics (Gegel).
Only true if you can show that philosophy has debunked some of its own thoeries in such a way that they can't rise again in their exact previous form were fashions to change.
Tweet
Comment