paradox's and stuff

[Frank the tank]

i gotta ask, and this comes directly from experience. but how many people think that paradoxically speaking we get what we deserve ( for the most part)

allright this is how i came to think of it. see a girl i know is getting hit by her boyfriend. now she's a nice girl -that draws the line in everyone's mind that she doesn't deserve to get hit. but i say she gets what she deserves - why? because it's her own fault for staying with the guy when she could easily leave - therefore even though she doesnt deserve to get hit, she ultimately gets what she deserves. consequence serves action - or inaction in this case.

im beggining to think this all things in life, anyone kinda get what im saying , have anything to add?

a good example is " nice guys finish last" and some other stuff tied into tit is like how the kid who puts his hand on the hot stove gets burned, or the just -world theory.

 

[ARC150]

In an attempt to save this thread, I am going to move quickly past the fact that the poster is not "paradoxically speaking," that the given example has nothing to do with paradox and that this is more a question for Dear Abby than for a philosophical forum.

In its stead, I present this (remotely) related idea:

There are many religions/beliefs that espouse ideas of "What goes around comes around."

• Certain sects of Wicca believe that wrong action will incur vengeance sevenfold.
• Certain ancient Nordic religions believe that "improper" action allows equal (or greater) reaction to maintain universal harmony.
• Certain Buddhists believe that one's actions will be recognized in future incarnations of the individual.

Do you believe that there is a universal drive toward this type of equilibrium?

For all us atheists out there, do you believe that our actions somehow shape our future such that (for example) continued benevolent action will increase our liklihood of revisited kindness?

Quantum mechanistic theory and Jungian Gestalt are possible starting points here.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Actually, Frank deserves credit for bringing up a subject worthy of discussion,that hasn't already been covered.

Arc150 makes good points, but I prefer not to go into the religious notions of consequences or punishment for one's actions, (and I'm leaving out fatalism for the moment) but to consider the secular aspects of the "just world" theory.

To a great extent individuals get what they deserve in life. The girl who stays with an abusive boyfriend gets what she deserves, as in Frank's example. (But does the boyfriend?)

A lot of people, however, hide behind the idea that "bad" things only happen to "bad" people as a kind of reassurance theat they are safe from harm, as long as they don't do something to bring it onto themselves. This state of inaction unfortunately has an effect in the long-term that a very harmful consequence could build up as a result of their cowardly non-intervention. So, the "just world" attitude can be a kind of sticking the head in the sand, an excuse not to get involved when one should.

In most accidents, a person gets what they deserve, due to not taking sufficient care - but many times also one can be an innocent victim of someone else's carelessness. Nowhere can ever be guaranteed safe from all eventualities.

We can think of "bad" and/or irresponsible people who seem to live their whole lives harming others, making lives miserable, and yet they benefit financially and status wise, with no apparant ill effect. Those who use the "just world" outlook often like to imagine these people must have redeeming features that make them deserve their success. Indeed they even equate success with having been a reward for good behaviour regardless of the person's track record!

Then again, why not keep morality out of the equation? These nasty people often do deserve their success simply because they are ruthless, ambitious and driven - while others deserve to suffer from such people because they didn't do enough to prevent it.

While it is not true to say that every individual gets what they deserve - it is a lot more true of biological groups of people. If a biological group behaves in a certain way in general, they bring consequences that are entirely deserved upon themselves. It is just unfortunate for the small minority within that group, who sees the danger and yet is insufficiently influential to prevent the disaster.

The humans will get what they deserve: extinction.

 

[Horus]

I thought a Paradox was when you try to analyze something and it just keeps going in circles, like the whole thing of "If you impregnated your grandmother, does that make you your own grandfather?" (Thank you Futurama!! ) This discussion thus far seems to be more about Karma than anything. But both topics are just as fun.

On the topic of Karma and people getting what they deserve, I have a good example that most people would commonly overlook: Atlantis. There's many versions of the myth, but they all mean the same thing: The Atlanteans destroyed themselves. Some versions say that it was because they decided to stop worshipping Poseidon, and other versions abide by the belief that it was because they failed to unite as one civilization, that they destroyed themselves when they were at war amongst themselves. They didn't behave, so they died. Both mean the same thing: They had it coming.

And then, as a loyal Kamelot fan, I am obligated to say "Who would trade his karma for my kingdom?; A sacrificial right to render truth; The fire in my soul rejects my wisdom; 'cause all you do in life comes back to you." The chorus lyrics from the song "Karma".

But unfortunately, the idea of Karma doesn't always hold true to reality. If it did, the world would be a much better place. There have been cases in history with people who have been responsible for countless crimes against humanity, and yet still live out their days unthreatened, while people who are good at heart, and do whatever they can to help others, yet get stuck with heavy burdens of poverty, or poor living conditions, etc.

Karma is a tricky subject to tackle. I've been working on it for 5 years now, and I've been stuck at this spot the entire time.

And back on the matter of Paradoxes, I came to realize just now that the ultiamte paradox ever, otehr than the Futurama one from above, is the entire game of The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask, for the Nintendo 64. Since you keep going back in time over and over again, doesn't that mean that you're not making any progress at all? And since you're going back in time, doesn't that mean that you'd have to beat all the dungeons over and over again every single time? (Goddammit, why the hell did my keyboardist have to decide to play his N64 at last band practice?)

 

[speed]

I thought a Paradox was when you try to analyze something and it just keeps going in circles, like the whole thing of "If you impregnated your grandmother, does that make you your own grandfather?" (Thank you Futurama!! ) This discussion thus far seems to be more about Karma than anything. But both topics are just as fun.

On the topic of Karma and people getting what they deserve, I have a good example that most people would commonly overlook: Atlantis. There's many versions of the myth, but they all mean the same thing: The Atlanteans destroyed themselves. Some versions say that it was because they decided to stop worshipping Poseidon, and other versions abide by the belief that it was because they failed to unite as one civilization, that they destroyed themselves when they were at war amongst themselves. They didn't behave, so they died. Both mean the same thing: They had it coming.

And then, as a loyal Kamelot fan, I am obligated to say "Who would trade his karma for my kingdom?; A sacrificial right to render truth; The fire in my soul rejects my wisdom; 'cause all you do in life comes back to you." The chorus lyrics from the song "Karma".

But unfortunately, the idea of Karma doesn't always hold true to reality. If it did, the world would be a much better place. There have been cases in history with people who have been responsible for countless crimes against humanity, and yet still live out their days unthreatened, while people who are good at heart, and do whatever they can to help others, yet get stuck with heavy burdens of poverty, or poor living conditions, etc.

Karma is a tricky subject to tackle. I've been working on it for 5 years now, and I've been stuck at this spot the entire time.

And back on the matter of Paradoxes, I came to realize just now that the ultiamte paradox ever, otehr than the Futurama one from above, is the entire game of The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask, for the Nintendo 64. Since you keep going back in time over and over again, doesn't that mean that you're not making any progress at all? And since you're going back in time, doesn't that mean that you'd have to beat all the dungeons over and over again every single time? (Goddammit, why the hell did my keyboardist have to decide to play his N64 at last band practice?)

No offense Ptah, but this borders on pop-culture, conspiracy drivel. Quoting video games, Kamelot, and some theories regarding atlantis as examples, is perhaps not the best way to go about this topic on this board. Perhaps if it helps personally, but I personally got nothing out of your anecdotes.

However, I realize the thread was created following the same type of structure.

 

[Horus]

Sorry. My brain usually doesn't work at 5:30 in the morning. My sense of actual thinking usually doesn't kick in until around an hour or so after waking up.

But all I was trying to do was state my opinion on the matter. It just came out really bad.

 

[reidie]

allright this is how i came to think of it. see a girl i know is getting hit by her boyfriend. now she's a nice girl -that draws the line in everyone's mind that she doesn't deserve to get hit. but i say she gets what she deserves - why? because it's her own fault for staying with the guy when she could easily leave - therefore even though she doesnt deserve to get hit, she ultimately gets what she deserves. consequence serves action - or inaction in this case.

Seriously, is this is the best analogy/situation you could find to descride karma?

Suggesting that she deserved to get hit for not leaving a guy is pretty fucking lame. Relationships are complicated beasts, there might more to the story than you know. Sometimes getting out of a relationship can be a highly complicated issue and although Clichéd , love can be blind...

... Besides, the bitch was probably asking for it

 

[OldScratch]

It seems to me that Karma is no more real or tangible than other superstition or religion. I apologize that I cannot quote or reference any great thinker on this topic, but the most simplistic summation of this idea that one's actions are ultimately revisited upon them as a manner of some cosmic retaliation is effectively, superstitious nonsense. For that to be so, one would have to embrace the belief that all human intercourse is somehow "judged"(hence the religious nature of "what comes around...") and subsequently manipulated for a desired outcome aimed at punishment or a reckoning, if you will. Outside a religious belief system, what could possibly make this so?

 

[Horus]

Well even though Karma by chance might not be very possible, there is still the argument of people themselves making sure of Karma happening to them. I can tink of a bunch of things that I could use as examples, but it'd all be "pop-culture, conspiracy drivel", as speed said. (But in reading my own post over, now it pisses me off too, so I guess he was right.) But the basic idea of what I mean could be as simple as someone returning a small favor, or as big as one person exacting their revenge on another. Even though the action isn't being caused on a cosmic scale, it's still being returned to them.

 

[Gordon M]

For the best understanding of paradox, Jorge Luis Borges and G.K. Chesterton are the best teachers.

 

[derbeder]

Most (Anglo-American) philosophers today take a paradox to be the derivation of an apparent contradiction from apparently plausible premises. I doubt there is much agreement on usage outside of professional circles, but people seem to take a paradox to be just some at least prima facie puzzling claim.

Perhaps the deepest paradoxes are the paradoxes concerning truth and vagueness (i.e. the Liar and the Sorites paradoxes). Discussion of these paradoxes are usually at a rather technical level nowadays, though, and this makes it a little difficult to discuss the issues in a satisfactory way on a board. It is very common to take these paradoxes to have consequences for logic (to the question: what are the valid laws of inference in a formalization of a natural language?), and the model theory and the proof theory for the non-classical logics proposed in a solution to the paradoxes can get a little complicated.

In the case of the Liar paradox, some have proposed that the law of excluded middle (LEM - either p or not-p) is not valid, others have weakened the basic platitude concerning truth (that p is true if and only if p), and yet others have suggested that there are true contradictions (and also have accepted a paraconsistent logic in which a contradiction does not entail every sentence whatever. In classical logic a contradiction entails everything).

There are a plethora of solutions to each of these two paradoxes and it is sometimes hard to see what sort of considerations should be taken to bear on which position might be correct. I find these issues fascinating, though. I wonder if anyone else here is interested in this stuff.

 

[judas69]

Karma clearly exists from a global perspective as future generations are doomed to inherit the results of the action or inaction of past generations. We have the benefit of living on a planet free of significant external influence, which is not however the case when it comes to the individual system.

Thus, as far as a local perspective goes, I think we can make a very similar arguement as the golden rule does hold in theory however, there will be exceptions as per the above reason.

As far as the Buddhist belief in Karma goes, it depends. The majority of Buddhists and Ch'an Buddhists in particular, take a more figurative approach for many reasons. Karma thus, in the literal sense, is a little misleading and varies depending on what school you study.

 

[Blowtus]

I don't see how you could unequivocally go for one or the other - 'yes they do get what they deserve' or 'no they don't'. Lots of things occur in the world / life that are still random and unpredictable to the individual, but then there are many aspects where we have (or should have) the knowledge and ability to predict and modify our future. Sometimes the difference between these two can simply be the percieved likelyhood of events occurring - it does our decision making ability little good to always take *everything* into account, we quickly filter out what we percieve as irrelevant / highly unlikely, but occasionally these highly unlikely events occur.

Some rough real world examples of what I mean: I go for a walk, I know through experience and reason that this is not a particularly dangerous activity, it poses far higher likelyhood of net benefit than net loss, but I am one of the unlucky few that get hit by a car crashing over the footpath. Unless you want to argue for some sort of immeasurable, great balancing spiritual force (not really a defendable position from my perspective, concept seems more likely to have come about from peoples desires than from their observations) then I don't see that you would have any reason to say I 'deserved' to get run over. (I guess you could remove the purpose from the word 'deserved' and suggest that because it happened, I deserved it... but seems kind of circular and pointless to discuss in that case)

An example of 'deserved' events is easy, I do an old friend I haven't seen for a long time a big favour at small cost to myself, this favour is returned in the future by my friend, we both have a net benefit and a closening of our relationship.

How much is deserved and how much is random? I guess it depends how strong the random events are in comparison to deserved - obviously my random example has large potential to be a dramatically life changing event, but not all would be so.