Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:45 pm**

Malik, what do you think of this?

Jesus wrote:What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' And he answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?

(And do you think it has to do with anything we're talking about?)

It's from this chapter, for anyone interested in context.

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:37 am**

For those raising the point about how science is relativistic... I don't think you realize one of the most mind-bending aspects of relativity. Namely, that the speed of light (C- about 3 million meters per second) Is perfectly, and absolutely constant. In fact, the very fabric of the universe will bend, so that light continues to travel at C from all vectors and perspectives. Einstein, in fact, didnt want to call this his theory of Relativity, he wanted to call it the theory of constancy. (I may be paraphrasing, I lent the book I read that in to a friend, I don't have it on me.)

If you don't quite get what I am driving at, imagine a man running with a flashlight at... 12 meters per second. How fast is the light moving out of his flashlight? Well, relative to the person holding the flashlight... It's moving C. Relative to someone looking straight into the light, it's moving C. Relative to an observer watching him run, the light is moving C. Not C+ 12 meters per second, because light must always travel at C. Now imagine that he was moving at half the speed of light. It's clear that something has to give, in a sane world, you would just add the vectors. But light doesn't and cannot travel faster than c. In fact, once you get an understanding of this, it is fairly obvious that *nothing* can move faster than c. It isn't an esoteric guess, it is part of the natural logic of the theory.

I could explain it clearer, but I have to put my mind into the right frame of thought to conceptualize it again. (I have before several times, but a certain time living in the *real* world has drivin it out of me again.) I would highly reccomend a book called "The Elegant Universe" to anyone who wants to understand more about this.

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:55 pm**

The Speed of Light is not constant. The Speed of Light in Vacuum is Constant.

That's why we have Čerenkov radiation.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:02 am**

I am curious as to how this comprimises with relativistic theory. (maybe it doesn't) Reletivity works pretty much as I stated. Does the speed reduction merely have to do with deflection and dispersion of light through a medium? Or are photons actually moving .75c at the quantam level? Is this an "average" speed? A "practical" speed for measuring in an atmosphere? I can't imagine photons are actually moving at a speed which is not c. It would be hard to convince me that was possible.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:56 pm**

In passing through materials, the observed speed of light can differ from c. The ratio of c to the phase velocity of light in the material is called the refractive index. This apparent contradiction to the universality of the constant c is a consequence of sloppy (but universally practiced) nomenclature: what is referred to as light in a medium is really a light-like hybrid of electromagnetic waves and mechanical oscillations of charged or magnetic particles such as electrons or ions, whereas light in the strict sense is a pure electromagnetic wave (see further discussion below). The speed of light in air is only slightly less than c. Denser media, such as water and glass, can slow light much more, to fractions such as ¾ and ⅔ of c. Through diamond, light is much slower—only about 124,000 kilometres per second, less than ½ of c.[5] This reduction in speed is also responsible for bending of light at an interface between two materials with different indices, a phenomenon known as refraction.

Since the speed of light in a material depends on the refractive index, and the refractive index depends on the frequency of the light, light at different frequencies travels at different speeds through the same material. This can cause distortion of electromagnetic waves that consist of multiple frequencies, an effect called dispersion.

Note that the speed of light referred to is the observed or measured speed in some medium and not the true speed of light (as observed in vacuum). It may be noted, that once the light has emerged from the medium it changes back to its original speed and this is without gaining any energy. This can mean only one thing—that the light's speed itself was never altered in the first place.

It is sometimes claimed that light is slowed on its passage through a block of media by being absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms, only traveling at full speed through the vacuum between atoms. This explanation is incorrect and runs into problems if you try to use it to explain the details of refraction beyond the simple slowing of the signal.

Classically, considering electromagnetic radiation to be like a wave, the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) interfere with the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation, slowing its progress.

The full quantum-mechanical explanation is essentially the same, but has to cope with the discrete particle nature (see Photons in matter): The E-field creates phonons in the media, and the photons mix with the phonons. The resulting mixture, called a polariton, travels with a speed different from light.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:21 pm**

I think I got lucky with my word choice up there, makes me look way smarter than I actually am

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:57 am**

Wayfriend wrote:
Tjol wrote:My impression is that relatavism starts with the intent of not making moral judgements
Actually, it starts when you persue objectivism far enough and discover that it breaks down under not-very extreme conditions.

I would say that objectivism doesn't break down, but perception. I think that's the split...finding the flaw in perception, or finding the flaw in objective reality.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:04 am**

Lina Heartlistener wrote:
Tjol wrote:Relatavism- There are no objective actualities in this world. No moral judgements to be made, nor any other better or lesser options, all things are equally valid and equally real and equally accurate, because nothing is accurate. There are no rules or tendencies, and so their is no making any use of what we perceive save for to understand ourselves. And even that can only be done from a relatavist point of view.
...
Revise and reflect.

Although I too am incredibly frustrated with the mindbendingness of moral relativism... I have to say what you give here is sorta a caricature of relativism based on what it's become today - I think it was supposed to be an observation of reality rather than a MORAL VALUE-determiner. (hehe, a generation of people creating their value judgements based on the idea that one should not make value judgements. Ha, EL's ironic comments are... more succinct and say just as much. )

I apply relatavism all the time, because it is useful when one admit's that one's perception isn't the last word on reality from time to time. So I understand what you mean when you say 'what it's become' v. what it in essence is supposed to be. What it has become though, I think somewhat follows from it's essence though. Dreaming's post regarding the error in the point of view 'there are no absolutes' applies to the essence of relatavism just as much as it applies to people who have moral values, but don't know how to advocate those values and fall back to 'well everyone has their own point of view'.

But saying that, yeah I scoff a lot more at 'pop-relatavism' than truely intellectual relatavism. The latter I think is an incorrect conclusion to draw, but the former, the former is intellectually insincere.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:15 pm**

It is important to understand a little more about Nietzche's personal life before taking his prescriptions too seriously. Nietzche was a precocious intellectual but never seems to have achieved any sort of mature relationship with anyone, much less a woman (although immediately prior to Also Sprach Zarathustra he seems to have fallen in love with one Lou Andreas Salomé and asked her to marry him -- and was firmly rejected). In fact it seems probable that his only carnal experiences were with prostitutes, which may have led to insanity via syphills.

Thus the question of Nietzche's emotional development and his consequent insight into the soul is a valid one. And his suggestion that the golden rule inevitably leads to a kind of enraged suppression is more understandable when viewed through the prism of his own emotional frustrations and repressed anger. With contemplation and practice, it is possible to act according to the golden rule without building up frustrated resentment. The key is not to suppress the emotions but to experience them without judgment and choose to let them pass without action. Afterwards watch them dissipate into cool tranquility.

Of course, some call this nirvana.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:38 pm**

By the way, isn't the question of absolutes metaphysical, and therefore ultimately a matter of interpretation? I think some forms of relativism embrace rationality and science, and that is where I usually find myself. The question of ethics is a slightly different one, however, since there do seem to be certain principles that are necessary for societies to exist; that they are implemented in different ways or accompanied by arbitrary cultural practices masquerading as "morals" does not undermine their reality.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:41 pm**

exnihilo wrote:The question of ethics is a slightly different one, however, since there do seem to be certain principles that are necessary for societies to exist; that they are implemented in different ways or accompanied by arbitrary cultural practices masquerading as "morals" does not undermine their reality.

If it's "necessary for societies to exist," then we're talking about a pragmatic definition, which is the essence of relativism. After all, there is nothing necessary about societies. Humans don't have to have them. We just like them because they are useful for all sorts of things.

About Nietzsche . . . he was acutely aware of his own anger (if that's the right word), primarily his disdain for how Christianity had (in his opinion) harmed mankind throughout history. This was his impetus behind creating the doctrine of eternal return. His view was to accept those things about reality which he (or anyone) didn't like, to greet reality with the "Holy Yes." Therefore, according to eternal return, he viewed history with an acceptance which transcended time, accepting it even if the whole thing were to repeat itself exactly as it was before.

Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing," and says that its burden is the "heaviest weight" ("das schwerste Gewicht")[7] imaginable. The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]

To comprehend eternal recurrence in his thought, and to not merely come to peace with it but to embrace it, requires amor fati, "love of fate":[8]

My formula for human greatness is amor fati: that one wants to have nothing different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely to bear the necessary, still less to conceal it--all idealism is mendaciousness before the necessary--but to love it.[8]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Fr ... _Nietzsche

To say that Nietzsche's views on ethics can be understood by filtering it through his "emotional frustrations and repressed anger," and then dismissing his points by arguing for a more "contemplative and practiced" relationship with the Golden Rule, ignores his own views of his emotions. He was aware of the poisoning nature of "repressed anger," and developed an entire doctrine around the idea of accepting unattractive truths. Yet, this does not invalidate his thoughts on ethics, because those ideas, too, rely upon an idea of self-actualization. He didn't reject the Golden Rule out of spite for his fellow man. I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't be nice to people. In fact, he was probably saying something much closer to your own position: not letting your relationships with other people cause you to subsume your own worth within service to others. Service to others can be twisted into your own subjugation, out of a sense of guilt and unworthiness, and a need for their approval. I think part of his reversal of traditional values was to recognize that respect and acceptance of oneself is the first step in a truly authentic value system. Personally, I think this is the only authentic way to develop love for others, rather than the Christian alternative: loving others out of a sense of inherited guilt and unworthiness. . . a means to make amends for your sinful nature through service to others. This was what he was trying to reverse, by putting one's values on a firmer ground, and not starting from a position of unworthiness. but rather a position of affirmation and acceptance.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:35 am**

Malik, I just want you to know that I appreciate your formidable reply and I am formulating an appropriate response. I appreciate your patience.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:44 am**

I apologise for a aside... but is there a work that best captures Neitzsche views? I saw one on his evaluation of history as an occupation for humanity that looked interesting, but I'm really looking for something that would offer up a synopsis of his philosophy over the course of his life. I've read so many quotes, and heard so many opinions, but Nietzsche is one of those modern-era philosophers I really don't know much detail on.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:53 pm**

Nietzsche is one of those philosophers who is difficult to pin down without reading quite a bit of his work. You can take his quotes out of context to make him sound like he supports views he doesn't really support (anti-semitism, for instance, or nihilism).

In addition, you can read his works and not understand them because the translation from German is bad, or because he is cleverly alluding to another of his own works, or those of another philosopher's, or even the Bible. He is notorious for not giving footnotes or citing the sources of his paraphrased versions of what other people have said. He often criticizes the positions of other thinkers without providing quotes.

However, if you want to read his most influential or famous works, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil are good places to start. The former is more like a novel, however. It is extremely metaphorical.

Maybe an even better place to start is an encyclopedia of philosophy. The Wikipedia article is surprisingly good and lengthy.

Kevin's Watch

Absolutism v. Relatavism

sometimes a woman just can't stop talking... :P

Re: Absolutism v. Relatavism

Re: Absolutism v. Relatavism