Philosophical Conundrum III: Chaos & Order

[Variable Rush]

Neither.

You have to have both in order to exist. In all good is some evil and in all evil is some good. If chaos ruled, yes there would be order, but at what cost?

By your definition of "Order is Chaos and Chaos is Order" both are one and the same. Therefore, what is the point you are trying to make?

That which is "naturally to be" is known as nature. It's the governing force of nature. It's the circle of life. Things are born, live, and die. And thus, new things are born. As long as that cycle has ORDER to it, life on this planet continues.

CHAOS, the human element, is also a part of nature and it comes into effect when man destroys forests and builds concrete jungles so that business men can rush to work on the subway while talking on their cell phones making deals with people in Beruit.

[joe_cam]

tee-hee

[Almasy Marquis]

I vote for DRUNK

[Anonymous]

I vote for DRUNK
That was...very...inspired and profund, Mr. Marquis.

Thanks for sharing...asshole.

Stewie: "Are you gonna listen ta me? Are you gonna listen ta me so I can tell you...that I respect...you?"

[Almasy Marquis]

Thank you

I'll be here all week

[Azar]

If we follow what is naturally to be, Chaos, that which is natural, there would be peace and harmony.

If we follow the conventions of man, Order, there is discord, the opposite of harmony. People hurting and killing other people who do not follow what is conventionally accepted, law, if you will.

That would really depend on what you define as natural, if natural is going with the flow then it is not chaos, chaos is going out of your way against the flow hoping things work out that way. Chaos is not natural. Natural is Natural.

Man created law, hopefully to control themselves. If people could figure out how to control themselves then there would be order. That however is just my opinion, as it is to the best of my definiton of "order". Now I would go and through some biblical stuff in here but it's uncessary, since the whole philosphy thing is opinionated anyways.\

And Pickles :P

[Dimiotrix]

I vote for pickles :]

[Anonymous]

How...who edited my poll to include "Pickles?"

That is just WRONG.

I want a SERIOUS discussion, people.

I ask because I VALUE your say.

Well, I do not value everyone's say.

Just certain peoples' say.

[Almasy Marquis]

Ipso facto, someone must value only certain people's discussions. >D

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at in your original post and certain imbibed spirits led me to the conclusion that you were trying to sound liek teh smartey man.

[Shonen Samurai]

I asked my friend xXxDARkApokalips666xXx and he said "totally Chaos".

[Symmetry]

I'd hardly call the food chain (IE, what is natural) peaceful and harmonius.

[Anonymous]

I'd hardly call the food chain (IE, what is natural) peaceful and harmonius.

Exactly. It is orderly...cat eats mouse, dog eats cat...very methodically strcutured.
...and the fact that you have a bunch of creatures that live on each others' deaths is chaotic.

[Symmetry]

I'd hardly call the food chain (IE, what is natural) peaceful and harmonius.

Exactly. It is orderly...cat eats mouse, dog eats cat...very methodically strcutured.
...and the fact that you have a bunch of creatures that live on each others' deaths is chaotic.

And if we follow this "cat eats mouse, dog eats cat" mentality, we would have anything but peace and harmony as you suggested.

Unless you mean to suggest that peace and harmony is the end result, when one creatue is left standing. But he/she/it wouldn't remain very long after that, would they? And harmony requires more than one person/being.

So lets all stop trying to be philosophical now and start using our brains once more. :P

[Enigmatic Magus]

Exactly. It is orderly...cat eats mouse, dog eats cat...very methodically strcutured.

... Dogs chase cats... I've never seen a dog EAT a cat.

And there is no chaos in order. Order is the lack of chaos. However, from one viewpoint, chaos is all-encompassing, so there can be order within chaos, though it's too short lived at any one time to be of any relative significance.

So, basically, only half your options are really viable.. and while I'd vote, your wording tends to be a vice-versa-esque set, meaning either choice is both right and wrong.

You should look into the basic dualities of metaphysics a little more, I think.. as is, you're not making much sense.

[KWarp]

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

In other words what is natural is "savage".


Order attemps to defy nature and to control chaos.

For the most part it works otherwise the world would be in a constant state of war.

[joe_cam]

Pickles is so winning this.

[animefreak]

sorry i didn't do it earlier. I took off the 'pickles' that whoever else added. back to your lovely discussion, pls

[SaveSuperJoe]

This is gonna be one helluva fight...

[animefreak]

not really!

[Iskandar]

aww, I voted for pickles like two hours ago. I wanna be pretentious, too! =(((

[animefreak]

Don't worry, you'll always be pretentious. And pickles are for eating anyways, fools. Not for voting.

[KWarp]

Since no one opposed my statement I self-proclaim myself dictator of earth! *shot*

Seriously though let's get somewhere further with this.

[Almasy Marquis]

Okay, go for it.

[KWarp]

Umm.. alright.. erm:

or·der Â*Â* (Â*PÂ*)Â*Â*Pronunciation KeyÂ*Â*(ôrdr)
n.

1. A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.
2.
a. A condition of methodical or prescribed arrangement among component parts such that proper functioning or appearance is achieved: checked to see that the shipping department was in order.
b. Condition or state in general: The escalator is in good working order.

3.
a. The established system of social organization: “Every revolution exaggerates the evils of the old order� (C. Wright Mills).
b. A condition in which freedom from disorder or disruption is maintained through respect for established authority: finally restored order in the rebellious provinces.

4. A sequence or arrangement of successive things: changed the order of the files.
5. The prescribed form or customary procedure: the order of worship.
6. An authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction.
7.
a. A command given by a superior military officer requiring obedience, as in the execution of a task.
b. orders Formal written instructions to report for military duty at a specified time and place.

8.
a. A commission or instruction to buy, sell, or supply something.
b. That which is supplied, bought, or sold.

9.
a. A request made by a customer at a restaurant for a portion of food.
b. The food requested.

10. Law. A direction or command delivered by a court or other adjudicative body and entered into the record but not necessarily included in the final judgment or verdict.
11. Ecclesiastical.
a. Any of several grades of the Christian ministry: the order of priesthood.
b. The rank of an ordained Christian minister or priest. Often used in the plural.
c. The sacrament or rite of ordination. Often used in the plural.

12. Any of the nine grades or choirs of angels.
13. A group of persons living under a religious rule: Order of Saint Benedict.
14. An organization of people united by a common fraternal bond or social aim.
15.
a. A group of people upon whom a government or sovereign has formally conferred honor for unusual service or merit, entitling them to wear a special insignia: the Order of the Garter.
b. The insignia worn by such people.

16. A social class. Often used in the plural: the lower orders.
17. A class defined by the common attributes of its members; a kind.
18. Degree of quality or importance; rank: poetry of a high order.
19. Architecture.
a. Any of several styles of classical architecture characterized by the type of column and entablature employed. Of the five generally accepted classical orders, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders are Greek and the Tuscan and Composite orders are Roman.
b. A style of building: a cathedral of the Gothic order.

20. Biology. A taxonomic category of organisms ranking above a family and below a class. See table at taxonomy.
21. Mathematics.
a. The sum of the exponents to which the variables in a term are raised; degree.
b. An indicated number of successive differentiations to be performed.
c. The number of elements in a finite group.
d. The number of rows or columns in a determinant or matrix.


cha·os Â*Â* (Â*PÂ*)Â*Â*Pronunciation KeyÂ*Â*(ks)
n.

1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics. A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete. An abyss; a chasm.

There.. uhhh.. yeah..

[joe_cam]

this just isn't fun without pickles...

[Gendo Ikari]

this just isn't fun without pickles...
...just wondering, who put that option in there, anyway? I know Baroquiel wouldn't...

...oh yes, I went with "The Order of Chaos." Chaos wreaked in an orderly manner is actually beneficial for the universe. You know, like the food chain and natural disasters...for example, forest fires...trees reproduce for pine cones' seeds, but those pine cones don't release their seeds until they've become caught up in heat as hot as a forest fire. Or unless you've brought an organic Christmas Tree in your house that happens to have pine cones...those pine cones will pop open if your house is heated at least at room temperature. Whoo...look at 'em go!

[SaveSuperJoe]

well, it's pretty easy to figure out who put that in if you read the posts...he he

[Azar]

this just isn't fun without pickles...

I really do wonder who put that option in there...it's just such a mystery. Who could it be? :D

[SaveSuperJoe]

tee-hee


Yeah, it's quite the enigma... :D

[Anonymous]

The point that I was trying to make is about the irony of what humanity calls "Order," and what humanity calls "Chaos."

"Order" is actually very forceful.

"Chaos" is actually very harmonious.

"Chaos" is a mountain; natural and serene, it just IS.

"Order" is a tunnel made through that mountain; man-made and forceful, both the tunnel itself, and the vehicles that run through it.

"Chaos" is also an earthquake; a natural occurrence perceived only as disastrous because it destroys what man has made, it returns things to nature.

Humans are only something that live on the surface of the planet, and the planet is something that does its own thing and cannot be tamed.

How arrogant and hateful humanity is, that it would sneer at nature; for it was nature, it was "Chaos," which originally bore humanity!

[Almasy Marquis]

You're just going to ignore this or call me an asshole but please knock it off. You're skewing the definitions of things by saying that "humanity" ascribes these definitions to these words for situations that can clearly be viewed one way or the other.

I wouldn't have a problem with you blathering about things that are pretty much obvious to almost everybody else (Nature has systems incorporated into it? Who would've thought!) except that you don't have anywhere that you're going with it. All you're doing is trying to figure out some kind of footing to look down your nose at the humans that hold absurdly one-dimensional definitions as you lay out.

So please either stop all this, because it's not informative and it's not entertaining, now that there's a lack of pickles. Either that or please tell us what the goddamned point is, beyond trying to pass yourself off as sagely.

[Iskandar]

I'm not annoyed as much as Almasy, but I also don't think this is the best place for pretentious philosophising, especially if you can't laugh at yourself while doing so.

I also jump up and down for semi-complex sentences.

[animefreak]

baro, i really think your logic is... well, not to be mean, but it is seriously screwy. nature is neither 'chaos' or 'order'. there are chaotic elements to it, there are chaotic things that serve the order, there are ordered things that seem chaotic... it really just isn't as plain as you've put it. Also, there is a difference between nature's order, and humanity's order. that isn't to say that one of them is 'order' and one of them is 'chaos', again, it's not that easy to say.

[Anonymous]

baro, i really think your logic is... well, not to be mean, but it is seriously screwy. nature is neither 'chaos' or 'order'. there are chaotic elements to it, there are chaotic things that serve the order, there are ordered things that seem chaotic... it really just isn't as plain as you've put it. Also, there is a difference between nature's order, and humanity's order. that isn't to say that one of them is 'order' and one of them is 'chaos', again, it's not that easy to say.

YES! THAT is what I WANTED you to say!

I wanted to see if someone could hand my point to me.

I thought I would have to squeeze it out of someone's b**** for them to say it.

My point is that everything is two-sided; people think too much of things as black-and-white, "you are wrong and I am right," and that irritates me to no end, that people cannot see things for multiple perspectives; that people cannot see things from others' perspectives.

I try to consider others' perspectives before passing judgement; I try to say, "They must be having a bad day," before I say," That person is a complete asshole."

[DragonNyght]

YES! THAT is what I WANTED you to say!

I wanted to see if someone could hand my point to me.


So really then, this whole thread isn't really a discussion, but more of an exercise to see who can feed you what you want to hear?

[Anonymous]

YES! THAT is what I WANTED you to say! I wanted to see if someone could hand my point to me.

So really then, this whole thread isn't really a discussion, but more of an exercise to see who can feed you what you want to hear?
No, no, no, no, no-no-no-no-no nonononononono...

I like to try to prove my points by having someone ELSE prove them FOR me.

And that helps bring my point into the realm of legitimacy.

The fact that someone else can say the same thing I am saying using their own words means that I have hammered my point home.

Ach, NOW I KNOW better than to try and bring anymore random philosophical discussions HERE.

[Almasy Marquis]

It's not a DISCUSSION if the entire thread is a TRAP TO MAKE SOMEONE SPOON-FEED YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO PROVE BUT ARE INCAPABLE OF PROVING COHERENTLY!!!!!!!

HELL'S BELLS

You've hammered nothing home beyond the point that you are without a doubt one of the most self-centered individuals I've ever seen in my entirely life. Good God Almighty. You've been trying to make someone else say in their words what you wanted to prove, and that validates this entire excrutiating experience?

[Symmetry]

You're just going to ignore this or call me an asshole but please knock it off. You're skewing the definitions of things by saying that "humanity" ascribes these definitions to these words for situations that can clearly be viewed one way or the other.

I wouldn't have a problem with you blathering about things that are pretty much obvious to almost everybody else (Nature has systems incorporated into it? Who would've thought!) except that you don't have anywhere that you're going with it. All you're doing is trying to figure out some kind of footing to look down your nose at the humans that hold absurdly one-dimensional definitions as you lay out.

So please either stop all this, because it's not informative and it's not entertaining, now that there's a lack of pickles. Either that or please tell us what the goddamned point is, beyond trying to pass yourself off as sagely.

Agreed, 100 %


Ach, NOW I KNOW better than to try and bring anymore random philosophical discussions HERE.

This is about as philosophical as the Democratic National Convention is bipartisan.

[joe_cam]

I thought I would have to squeeze it out of someone's b**** for them to say it.

b---- b------...... b..unny?
Someone's bunny?

That's my best guess...

[Iskandar]

yeah. this is an effective learning (or at least mnemonic) tool, but unfortunately we're not your students. personally, if I'm gonna be manipulated, it had better be for something exquisite.

[Anonymous]

You've hammered nothing home beyond the point that you are without a doubt one of the most self-centered individuals I've ever seen in my entirely life. You've been trying to make someone else say in their words what you wanted to prove, and that validates this entire excrutiating experience?
Whoa, let's try putting things back into perspective.

My way of having others "teach" me what I want to teach is them is a way that was classically used by many ancient Asian philosophers.

The point of these philosophical discussions is to introduce a new way of thinking.

I am interested in seeing what you can do with what I have to say.

I am also interested in what you have to show me.

Ideally, it is designed to be a mutual exchange.

But more often than not, I do this for my audience, only one who is willing to listen.

But alright, now I know that you do not care, so I will stop.

I know I am not getting anything out of sharing with you so I will not bother to share.

Well, maybe I DID learn something from all of this...

...it is arrogant for me to say that I have something to teach you...at least, that is what you would have me believe...

...how troubling.

[joe_cam]

Locked or not, I still wanna know why you're into bunny squeezing...