主頁 高登熱話 吃喝玩樂 科技消費 名人專訪 短片
現有會員可[按此]登入。未成為會員可[按此]註冊。
[公司模式 - 關]  [懷舊模式 - 開
[Youtube 預覽 - 關]  [大字型]  [小字型]

您現在聚腳在 學術台內。

【再負荊請罪】全新高登官方app HKG正式上架 會員永久免廣告
是咁的,2016年年尾,我因為忽略會員對手機程式o既需求,做o左一個不明智o既決定,加上一直未有好好回應會員平日訴求,最終令唔少會員不滿。事件並唔單單影響我,亦影響一直以來熱愛高登o既每一名網民,為此再向各位表示衷心歉意。:-(

或者有巴打會講,寫好隻app自然會有人回家。我唔否認自己曾經都抱過呢種僥倖心態,但沉思過後,我明白其實只係寫好一隻app並不足夠,要為高登會員做o既事情實在太多,包括提升網速同改善伺服器穩定、維護自由o既討論空間、鼓勵會員參與創作及討論等。因為,高登最珍貴o既係每一位會員,所以落足心力滿足會員訴求係高登o既首要任務。 ......
精選文章
跳至第

發起人
Introduction to Philosophy 三步證上帝存在
281 個回應
咩叫差嘅哲學
呢種係其中一種:

A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this:
Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn't give any argument for it. I don't think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B.

This line of thought may very well be correct. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. But the student hasn't really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don't want to make that assumption, you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well-written.
(Jim Pryor,Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper)
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html



無神論者 根本唔會認同 耶教個種價值觀
亦唔會認同佢地個種善 係真係善
舉出呢種反駁 去分析本體論論證 話佢地個「完美」冇人客觀認同
同呢d學生論文一樣 淨係識話我唔接受個假設一樣 係完全 philosophically uninteresting


呢個 post 睇來都好多人會有類似嘅 argument

咩不完美既上帝個 d 思路,恕我唔會再回應

一睇到上帝就起曬矛[sosad]
係你地先咁好心機回呢種回覆十頁[sosad]
係我回兩三次就唔理佢地了



[sosad] 開始唔想回

intellectual puzzle啫 [sosad] 真係當人地信耶咁 咁多負評


咩叫差嘅哲學
呢種係其中一種:

A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this:
Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn't give any argument for it. I don't think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B.

This line of thought may very well be correct. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. But the student hasn't really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don't want to make that assumption, you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well-written.
(Jim Pryor,Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper)
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html



無神論者 根本唔會認同 耶教個種價值觀
亦唔會認同佢地個種善 係真係善
舉出呢種反駁 去分析本體論論證 話佢地個「完美」冇人客觀認同
同呢d學生論文一樣 淨係識話我唔接受個假設一樣 係完全 philosophically uninteresting


呢個 post 睇來都好多人會有類似嘅 argument

咩不完美既上帝個 d 思路,恕我唔會再回應

一睇到上帝就起曬矛[sosad]
係你地先咁好心機回呢種回覆十頁[sosad]
係我回兩三次就唔理佢地了



[sosad] 開始唔想回

intellectual puzzle啫 [sosad] 真係當人地信耶咁 咁多負評

根本唔應該回,好影響討論
搞到我搵唔返、唔想搵你地之前回我啲野:o)


咩叫差嘅哲學
呢種係其中一種:

A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this:
Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn't give any argument for it. I don't think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B.

This line of thought may very well be correct. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. But the student hasn't really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don't want to make that assumption, you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well-written.
(Jim Pryor,Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper)
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html



無神論者 根本唔會認同 耶教個種價值觀
亦唔會認同佢地個種善 係真係善
舉出呢種反駁 去分析本體論論證 話佢地個「完美」冇人客觀認同
同呢d學生論文一樣 淨係識話我唔接受個假設一樣 係完全 philosophically uninteresting


呢個 post 睇來都好多人會有類似嘅 argument

咩不完美既上帝個 d 思路,恕我唔會再回應

一睇到上帝就起曬矛[sosad]
係你地先咁好心機回呢種回覆十頁[sosad]
係我回兩三次就唔理佢地了



[sosad] 開始唔想回

intellectual puzzle啫 [sosad] 真係當人地信耶咁 咁多負評

根本唔應該回,好影響討論
搞到我搵唔返、唔想搵你地之前回我啲野:o)


你好似問咩 完美存在無限 loop?


咩叫差嘅哲學
呢種係其中一種:

A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this:
Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn't give any argument for it. I don't think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B.

This line of thought may very well be correct. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. But the student hasn't really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don't want to make that assumption, you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well-written.
(Jim Pryor,Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper)
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html



無神論者 根本唔會認同 耶教個種價值觀
亦唔會認同佢地個種善 係真係善
舉出呢種反駁 去分析本體論論證 話佢地個「完美」冇人客觀認同
同呢d學生論文一樣 淨係識話我唔接受個假設一樣 係完全 philosophically uninteresting


呢個 post 睇來都好多人會有類似嘅 argument

咩不完美既上帝個 d 思路,恕我唔會再回應

一睇到上帝就起曬矛[sosad]
係你地先咁好心機回呢種回覆十頁[sosad]
係我回兩三次就唔理佢地了



[sosad] 開始唔想回

intellectual puzzle啫 [sosad] 真係當人地信耶咁 咁多負評

根本唔應該回,好影響討論
搞到我搵唔返、唔想搵你地之前回我啲野:o)


其實我都忍住道氣,心諗冇必要講得咁清楚,但其實愈係有D人提出反論(幾荒謬也好),你就愈要試下去講明白佢,反而有時咁先可以睇到自己係咪真係好明白個問題,同埋提升自己既解釋能力



老實講,我睇左你段野4,5次,都係唔明你講乜,一來係冇解釋應該要解釋既野...愈好既解釋,就係連一個C9都睇得明,平凡人都睇得明,唔洗基於一D已知知識。


我不答一晚點知去到第12版...
我在回答第九版對我的問題(瑪莉和非台巴打)。
首先是,擧簡單的例子,比如說這是一個武鬥賽,每一個人都有一個“武功、體魄、神態”的綜合評分(以後叫它“評分”),我們再從這個評分可以得到這個人的戰鬥力。
我們先從強大的人開始說。高手過招,細節決定成敗,説不定大師二星(評分:200,戰鬥力:100)贏大師一星(評分:195,戰鬥力:50),只是因爲他爆炸不看身後;大師三星(評分:201,戰鬥力:400)贏大師二星。對於高手而言,“評分”差別雖小,“戰鬥力”差別奇大;越是高手越是如此。如此,我們能不能通過理性推斷出最強戰鬥力的人(或神)?顯然不行,因爲對於很強的人而言,改進一點點,戰鬥力就會翻幾倍。你雖然未必能達到“改進一點點”的境界,但你可以想象你“改進一點點”之後會變成什麽樣,而這也説明你之前就算很高的戰鬥力,也不是最高。如果你也許會說,那我覺得最強的神,他戰鬥力“無限”。但是“無限”顯然不是一個數字。
從弱小的方面說,一個不做運動的傢伙(我)(評分:50,戰鬥力:1)固然很廢,但是病人(評分:10,戰鬥力:0.9)比我更廢;還后ICU人(評分:-1000,戰鬥力:0.8).你看到規律,就是在很廢的人群中,他的評分就算跌得再厲害,戰鬥力也下降不大,越廢越是這樣。我們能通過理性推論出絕對的廢柴嗎?可以,那就是死人,他的評分(實際上是無限負),它的戰鬥力是0。重點是現在上擂臺的只能是活人,死人沒有資格上擂臺賽。不過你可以想象,不管選手再怎麽廢,都廢不過死人。絕對的廢,就是死人的戰鬥力,就是0,我們可以接近這個戰鬥力(你永遠可以找到評分和戰鬥力都比你爛的人),我們永遠到達不了這個戰鬥力,因爲定義上不准選手死掉。
善惡就好像這裡的廢和強一樣。

對於非台巴打
1.”//我的意思是善惡兩分是錯誤的,沒有一件事情是絕對的善,因爲你沒有做得更好,相對于更好的善,你做了惡的事。//

對錯兩分是錯誤的,沒有一個講法是絕對的對,因為你沒有講得更對,相對於更正確的講法,你的講法就是錯的 “->我不覺得善惡和對錯可以類比
2. "謀殺(非自衛 非受傷害的情況下 有意圖殺人)就係絕對的惡
呢度嘅「絕對」 唔係「絕對零度」咁嘅絕對
冇理由理解做「絕對的惡」 = 「沒有更惡」

「絕對」其中一個用法,係「冇任何理由可以反對到」咁解 " 
->你說得沒錯。不過我之前的定義(也許我表達的不好)就是指”絕對零度般的“。其實是瑪莉巴打先提出兩個反駁”冷熱和善惡可以類比“的論點。這裡因爲把”冷熱”去和“善惡“比,所以我提出的”絕對”自然是指”絕對零度般的“。你的“絕對”沒有錯,也沒和我之前說的有什麽矛盾。只是一詞多義的問題。


其實,對自由意志的批評分別可以有3個。

一:如果解釋自然災害?
二:既然上帝給予人類自由意志會造成惡果,為何要給予人類自由意志?自由意志價值何在?
三:為什麼上帝王創造一個完美的世界?即是,人類可以運用自由意志,只從好事中行使自由意志,這樣就能杜絕惡果。

對於第三個回應:Richard Swinburne 有以下回應:

1. 發展出某些美德和達成某些祟高的目的是一件好事
2. 造物主(作為一個全善)的存有物希望我件好事們培養某些美德及達成某些祟高的目的。
3. 只有在一個不完美的世界內運用自由意志,我們才能獲得某些美德及達成某些祟高的目的
----------------
4. 所以,造物主創造了一個不完美的世界。

各位,幾以上的論證又有何見解?

附:
(2011考試報告) 考生膚淺 危樓變理想居所

【經濟日報專訊】青年的價值觀扭曲了?有高考生竟指,市民在塌樓意外中救人彰顯了高尚品德,故危樓是理想居所;亦有考生認為,「𡃁模」和援交風氣盛行,反映社會重視金錢,而不追求豪華居所的想法已過時。考評局批評考生,對中國文化精神認識膚淺、是非觀模糊。



冇人回覆,我也唯有繼續了。

對Swinburne既反駁可以有以下幾種:
1. 為了培養高尚美德為目的而造出一個不完美世界真的值得?例:學習勇氣,可以以發夢/上帝創造人類時已先前設定擁有勇氣的性質的方法取代不完美世界。

2. 美德是潛存性質 (Dispositional properties),即例如一塊薯片,有「脆」的性質,但你不會說:因我未咬下這塊薯片,所以這塊薯片沒有「脆」的性質。薯片中「脆」的性質不一定要展示出來,薯片才有「脆」的性質,美德同是。

雖然同意你第一點,但都試吓反駁

1.完美嘅世界,如果我理解為可以令人嘅慾望即時獲得滿足嘅世界,其實都係唔完美,因為會開始覺得無聊
而永生就更加令人無咗對死亡嘅恐懼,一直無聊咁生存反而係一種折磨

2.點證明到美德係潛在性質? 薯片做類比會唔會唔太合適,我直覺係人類透過學習嚟了解美德,一開始就唔脆嘅薯片或者已經無人會叫佢做薯片,但人呱呱落地嗰陣無美德都好正常
無讀過書真係唔明#adore# #adore#


跳至第



  快速回覆 - 輸入以下項目

本討論區現只接受會員張貼文章,本站會員請先登入。非會員人仕,您可以按此加入為新會員,費用全免,並可享用其他會員服務。


上次光臨時間: 18/2/2019 4:28
今天貼文總數: 336 | 累積文章數目: 6,465,996

聯絡我們 | 服務條款 | 私隱政策 | 廣告查詢 | 職位空缺
Copyright © 2019 HKGolden.com. All Rights Reserved.