The In Character Character Game: Part III

[Jemal]

Jim sits in the lotus position nearby, trying not to laugh as he listens to the conversations and willfuly keeping himself from joining in.

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

"I don't actively believe in a deity, because I've seen no evidence for, and no consistent model which includes both a benevolent or powerful deity and all observable phenomena."

Thomas nods in agreement. The sophist in him considers bringing up less than omnipotent or benevolent gods, but that's not what he's as interested in discussing.

"I don't believe in any inherent worth to humans as such, so you couldn't really call me a humanist; I don't like mechanistic universes, because they're deterministic, and I'd rather believe I have free will."

"Ah!" says Tom. "That is what I meant earlier when I spoke of valid philosophical theories being discarded due to, if you'll pardon the phrasing... hmm. How to say this inoffensively." He considers for a way of saying 'human hang-ups' without saying 'human hang-ups.' "Due to psychological rather than philosophical reasons. I may sometimes desire that gravity not exist, but logic, rather than wishes, dictate reality."

 

[Paxus Asclepius]

"Ah!" says Tom. "That is what I meant earlier when I spoke of valid philosophical theories being discarded due to, if you'll pardon the phrasing... hmm. How to say this inoffensively." He considers for a way of saying 'human hang-ups' without saying 'human hang-ups.' "Due to psychological rather than philosophical reasons. I may sometimes desire that gravity not exist, but logic, rather than wishes, dictate reality."

"Don't worry about offending me; I'd be impressed if you could. True, a deterministic universe is a perfectly valid model, but it essentially destroys all motivation. Que sera, sera. That's a pretty pointless worldview, even if it's true, just as pure existentialism is pointless. If you have any control over your behaviour, it's a clear sign that you have free will; if you don't, then you're destined to believe in free will or determinism, and there's no point in trying to change your mind or anyone else's."

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

"I disagree that determinism necessitates nihilism. I reached the mechanistic conclusion myself whilst considering the incompatibility of evil and the God sub one, which is what my first philosophy teacher designated the standard omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity. The idea was articulated by some French fellow during the enlightenment- if you knew the location and velocity of each particle in the universe, had an appropriate grasp of physics, and had a brain capable of running the calculations, you could figure out what the universe would look like at any point in time, forward or backward, in the same way you can predict where billiard balls will come to rest if certain ones are granted certain speeds. The logic is impeccable, near as I can tell.

“But, as you say, it’s not a terribly useful position to hold, much like solipsism. Just because it could, theoretically, be done doesn’t mean it will be- especially considering our apparent inability to know the location and velocity of one atom, let alone all the ones in the universe all at the same time. The ‘control’ of our actions is so small and outside the scope of everyday human endeavor that it’s like trying to say that since butterflies exert some small effect on meteorology that it is predetermined and thus it’s pointless to predict, prepare for, or otherwise act in accordance with. Best, as with solipsism, to ‘act’ like you have free will regardless of the actual truth of the matter.

“Mostly I find it useful as a rhetorical tool for the reason I first reached the conclusion- arguing the problem of evil...." Thomas trails off, then shakes his head. "Augh. Cut me off if I start to go on like that again."

 

[Paxus Asclepius]

“Mostly I find it useful as a rhetorical tool for the reason I first reached the conclusion- arguing the problem of evil...." Thomas trails off, then shakes his head. "Augh. Cut me off if I start to go on like that again."

"If I did that, I'd be giving you tacit permission to do the same, and I can't afford that."

 

[ThoughtBubble]

"So, maybe I'm just misunderstanding 'nihilism', but how does determinism lead into it. And besides, I'm still stuck where you stated that you can have a philosophical discussion without people's personal wants coming into it. At some point, you either have to just accept someone else's 'what ifs' and put your base assumptions aside. But it still doesn't change that what you believe is what you believe."

Daniel scratches his head. "Of course, you could be saying that people aren't willing to even discuss things with possibilities they don't like. And that seems to hold true."

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

"If I did that, I'd be giving you tacit permission to do the same, and I can't afford that."

Tom smiles slightly. "I don't quite follow you." He turns to Daniel.

"I don't see where preference gets you. You follow logic and rationality as far as it'll take you, and when that fails the results are inconclusive, not to be decided by feeling. Take solipsism: Logic shows us that we can't know if anything is real; whether or not we felt better the world being real or not doesn't matter; the results are simply inconclusive and we choose to act as practically as possible. I don't see what someone 'believes' as a paticularly worthwhile standard. Obviously you should show some respect, but sometimes what someone believes is illogical and should be described as such."

 

[Paxus Asclepius]

Tom smiles slightly. "I don't quite follow you."

"Cutting you off for rambling would essentially give my approval for you to do the same, and I ramble too much to let you stop me."

 

[Lichtenhart]

Mario's mind is crossed by the sudden idea of using a spell of silence in the room... then he thinks better of it.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

"I don't see where preference gets you. You follow logic and rationality as far as it'll take you, and when that fails the results are inconclusive, not to be decided by feeling. Take solipsism: Logic shows us that we can't know if anything is real; whether or not we felt better the world being real or not doesn't matter; the results are simply inconclusive and we choose to act as practically as possible. I don't see what someone 'believes' as a paticularly worthwhile standard. Obviously you should show some respect, but sometimes what someone believes is illogical and should be described as such."

"Again, take the simple fact that you're still starting from some basic point. With solipsism as an example, you don't know that you can't know if anything is real. That's where pereference comes in. From a pure logical standpoint, you can say wahtever you want, given the right starting premise. And how can a solipsist know ANYTHING? How can someone expect to say 'we don't know the world is real' and have a decent conversation about God unless they're willing to accept a different set of starting premises. But everything starts with a leap of logic, with a set of what ifs."