What We're Reading

[okiN]

If its a human invention in your mind, it can also be discarded as such. Whereas as a concept inherent to the universe it can not. Even a dog understands the concept of fairness and empathy and shame from actions they know are wrong. It isn't a human invention. While you may not have any desire to consider morality as unimportant to you as a personal choice, the framework in which you consider it to exist still allows that choice to be made, whereas I cannot, because in the framework I consider it to exist, it can never be discarded as "an invention of humans". The difference is that I can choose to do something immoral, and it would be immoral, and you could do something against the concept of morality and not consider yourself immoral at all by choosing to ignore it as a "human invention".

While some animals may have instincts of their own for shame and other emotions, they're still separate from human morality and in no way subject to it. We've developed our notions of ethics to such a degree that they've become something completely different from what they must have started out as. And funnily enough, in spite of what you say, people who do believe in absolute morality frequently don't seem to believe the things they do to that conflict with that morality to be really immoral because they invent new reasons for why that should be the case. So in that sense, I don't really believe it's much less vulnerable to being "discarded" as you put it.

I don't really want to get into the whole objective vs subjective argument at length here, I've gotten kind of tired of it and anyway it's a topic that's been discussed to death already by better minds than the pair of us. Still, I'll ask you one thing: if you don't believe moral codes come from humanity itself, why have they varied so wildly over the ages and across cultures?

I believe it's closer to a species survival thing, as we're one of the most social races. A society only works if it's members work with each other.

I think this is true of the core impulse to develop morality that people tend to possess, but to a huge degree the actual moral codes people follow are still social constructs, an even vary from person to person.

This discussion has enough meat in it to become another topic.

It does, yeah. I probably CBA to carry on with it much longer but if you want to, go for it.

[Malaclypse]

All things for the amplification and preservation of novelty and complexity.

[Osiris]

Finished the hunger games books. Never read battle royale i don't even know if it has any proper sequels but to be fair there are a lot of similarities and a lot of differences too still a pretty nice trilogy to read just gotta ignore all the nerd rage online about everyone copying everything else even tho battle royale was hardly an original idea anyway <3  Going to start Terry Goodwinds sword of truth books now hope they are good.

[Rumblood]

I believe it's closer to a species survival thing, as we're one of the most social races. A society only works if it's members work with each other. This discussion has enough meat in it to become another topic.

I don't really want to get into the whole objective vs subjective argument at length here, I've gotten kind of tired of it and anyway it's a topic that's been discussed to death already by better minds than the pair of us. Still, I'll ask you one thing: if you don't believe moral codes come from humanity itself, why have they varied so wildly over the ages and across cultures?

I think this is true of the core impulse to develop morality that people tend to possess, but to a huge degree the actual moral codes people follow are still social constructs, an even vary from person to person.

You should read Dianetics. You only need the first chapter for this discussion.

[okiN]

Are you saying you're a scientologist?

[Rumblood]

Are you saying you're a scientologist?

No, I'm saying what I said. You should read the first chapter as it pertains to the discussion.

On that note though, I find it ludicrous that people think that they have grounds to criticize any religion without having read their literature to understand their tenets. I find it even more ludicrous to find those who say they are a member of that religion without having read all of the literature of said religion. It amazes me how often you will find someone who is a "Christian", but admits to never having read the Bible, even in part, much less its entirety. I don't know any Scientologists myself, but I would expect due to the complex nature of the writing that you will find those who haven't read all of the literature as well.

[Eugen]

@ Rumblood.

Religions usually dont require you to read. You just have to join the religious comunity and attend the rituals and partake in the offerings (of money) normally. Only if you want to ascend in your religious group you are required to read (or memorize) some of your religions textes to counsel and teach and educate your fellow cult members or to recruit some new followers.

On the other hand if you want to study a religion you are required to read something about it - or go undercover into the comunity. But then you dont have to believe, you have  to argument.

There is a difference.

[Rumblood]

@ Rumblood.

Religions usually dont require you to read. You just have to join the religious comunity and attend the rituals and partake in the offerings (of money) normally. Only if you want to ascend in your religious group you are required to read (or memorize) some of your religions textes to counsel and teach and educate your fellow cult members or to recruit some new followers.

On the other hand if you want to study a religion you are required to read something about it - or go undercover into the comunity. But then you dont have to believe, you have  to argument.

There is a difference.

Except that you don't know what the hell you are claiming to believe in if you haven't studied its texts 

[okiN]

I've never met a scientologist either, that's why I was curious to know if you were one. If you're not, which is kind of a letdown, I do wonder why you'd recommend Dianetics to anybody. Why do you consider it more persuasive or valuable than the rest of scientologist literature? And why are you defensive of their weirdo new-age sci-fi religion in general?

[The_Bloody_Nine]

I never quite understood why people say this. Of course humanity's place in the universe is insignificant enough that we might as well not exist... but why should that matter? Specifically, why should that matter to us? "Scheme of astronomical proportions"? What scheme? Whose scheme? If you're not religious then there's no reason to consider that "scheme" important in any way, and if you are religious, then you probably subscribe to the notion that the rest of the universe is pretty much irrelevant and God only really cares about us anyway. The way I see it, the movements of all those galaxies and clusters don't matter at all insofar as they don't appreciably affect human life.

he, same here. For me that is similar to those people who are astounded by the notion of artificial or parallel reality. I precisely remember when I watched the first Matrix movie in cinema. I was maybe 16 then and everyone around me and all my friends were like: "whoa, imagine this floor is not real, blabla". I only thought that of course we don't know if reality is real, but isn't it a normal (though interesting) notion which in the end doesn't matter at all?

I think the key is that many people do actually believe in truths, facts and realities to a very high degree, not unlike any religion. For others the acceptance of those things naturally comes with the knowledge that everything might be different or in other words that reality relevant to us is only produced by ourselves and is not an absolute term.

[Rumblood]

I've never met a scientologist either, that's why I was curious to know if you were one. If you're not, which is kind of a letdown, I do wonder why you'd recommend Dianetics to anybody. Why do you consider it more persuasive or valuable than the rest of scientologist literature? And why are you defensive of their weirdo new-age sci-fi religion in general?

I find it ludicrous that people think that they have grounds to criticize any religion without having read their literature to understand their tenets.

You can slap that one against the mouths of 99% the Islam bashers we have in the world today.

You should read the first chapter as it pertains to the discussion.

[Joseph Porta]

Hey i have been trying to get into this lately, do you know with what should i start? For now i just read the lexicanum a lot and i know quite a bit of the lore

I started with "Conquest for Armageddon" bit it is really up tot you, the lore is so rlaborate its hard to say where to start, i just randomly picked something, allthough i guess the Horus Heresy is a voor starting point, also just scavenge the web for E-books is what I did, cause im a cheap prick. 

[zagibu]

Hey i have been trying to get into this lately, do you know with what should i start? For now i just read the lexicanum a lot and i know quite a bit of the lore

Well, if you already know a bit of the lore, pick a faction you like and start with its main series of books. Some suggest starting with Imperial Series (e.g. Gaunt's Ghosts or Lay Chancers), because they are easiest to relate to (because they are the basic humans). Then move on to one of the Space Marine orders (e.g. Space Wolves or Blood Angels). After that maybe the first three books of the Horus Heresy, or something else entirely, if you don't like Space Marines much. If you liked the Horus Heresy books, there are more of those, or maybe you'd like to see the other side (Eisenhorn gives a good overview of the Inquisition).

[Banok]

Reading the eye of the world

Feel like maybe GRRM has ruined typical fantasy for me, maybe I'm just getting too old tho.

[Kalam]

Reading the eye of the world

Feel like maybe GRRM has ruined typical fantasy for me, maybe I'm just getting too old tho.

Joe Abercrombie might help you out there.