12:36 AM
unicornlaw replied to your post: What is your favourite Pokemon?
I am shocked to my very core for a few reasons: 1. You don’t have a favourite Pokemon 2. You mentioned the word indifferent in the same paragraph as pokemon? This is clearly an outcry for help 3. What did you do in childhood? But lol at the test!!
Fiiiine, if I had to pick a favourite pokemon, it’d be Magikarp. I like splashing things, too.
Maybe we should have a pokemon battle, Wintle?
Powerful, slopey, dynamic
Outdoors, or indoors - it doesn’t matter :) I just like huge moves to terrible holds (preferably overhanging)
I don’t really have a favourite pokemon, so I did a personality test to tell me what pokemon type I’d be…
Apparently, I’m grass. I’m not sure whether I should be pleased about this, or (most likely) entirely indifferent, but here’s what my pokemon type says about me!
By nature, you are quick to form attachments to various people and things in your life. You don’t handle change very well, but despite this emotional weakness, you are often the saviour voice of practicality and reason.
What does it mean ‘I don’t handle change very well’? I’m a pokemon - my entire aim in life is to evolve. Bitch, I’ll change until I’m Venusaur
This personality test was rubbish.
11:55 PM
I’m getting that V7 tomorrow
Even if it kills me
(Which it might)
4:47 PM
If you find good arguments for the compatibility: I’d be interested.
If you can wait a year, my theory will be fully fleshed out ;)
I’m meeting some of my professors who are interested in this topic next week, and I’m picking one of them as a supervisor for my dissertation!
From there, I’ll keep you informed! :)
I don’t see how we can be held morally responsible for anything if we have no free will.
No, they are incompatible. Assuming responsibility requires control, determinism negates the possibility of genuine responsibility.
…I see it’s going to be a challenge to argue that determinism and responsibility are compatible!
9:27 PM
By the sounds of my last question…
Much of tumblr believes that morality is relative, or at least that morality is partly relative, with a few absolutes…
Second question (and this is the topic of my dissertation, loosely)…
Do we need free will to be morally responsible for our actions?
In other words, is determinism compatible with moral responsibility?
Morality.
Relative, or Absolute?
6:25 PM
3:58 PM
a message from Anonymous
I do indeed know what happened to lead-falling :) Perhaps if you come off anon, she’ll see this and get in touch
To my intriguing anon
I’ve got your reply to my argument, and I’ll respond to it tomorrow (it’s just gone midnight here, and I’m too tired now to give your argument the attention it deserves)
Please don’t think I’m ignoring you! I’ll reply to you tomorrow morning, and we can discuss the nature of causality and temporal correlation :)
Thanks for your questions though, anons and non-anons alike!
Keep them coming, there’s nothing I like more than intelligent debate!
4:07 PM
a message from Anonymous
Even if you accept your entire argument, all we have here is an argument for the conclusion that something must be eternal. There’s no premise of your argument that even remotely leads us to the conclusion that you’re doubtless aiming for - that our eternal ‘something’ must be a deity. To quote Hume, “may not the material universe be the necessary existent Being?” The entire argument here rests upon a simple premise - the universe could not necessarily exist. Since you’ve assumed this premise in order to make your argument logically valid, you need to argue for the claim before reaching a theistic conclusion :)
A good argument for the position that the universe had no beginning, and therefore no creator, is the theory that time began with the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, space did not exist. Since time and space are inherently interlinked, it has been argued by many physicists that the Big Bang was the beginning of time - ‘before’ the Big Bang is therefore meaningless to talk of temporally, as time did not exist! Why did the Big Bang occur? We simply have no idea. But if this theory is correct, it is meaningless to talk of the Big Bang as ‘caused’, as causation implies temporal relationship, impossible without time.
M-Theory is a real contender to challenge this idea of the Big Bang, at least as we know it. However, without any concrete evidence (of which there is none, as of yet), any argument which attempts to argue for a deity from the mere existence of ‘stuff’ is pure speculation
I hope this answer was satisfactory! But if not, feel free to get back in touch :) And there’s no need to be anonymous!
You have a nice day too :)
Josh
