Top products from r/AlreadyRed

> For starters, its entirely irrelevant to a discussion on human behavior. the last traces of our planet will have been destroyed billions of years prior to heat death which will still happen billions of years after we are all dead and buried and everyone who ever knew our name is dead and buried as well.

I agree 100% with your second sentence, however your first is dead fucking wrong.

Physics is everything.

It is, after all, THE science.

If sociology and psychology are indeed sciences, they will be touched in some way, some how, by physics.

Nevertheless, what you've stumbled on is a point within a point that I sought to make.

What do most people believe? All kinds of crazy shit. Everything from astrology to alternative medicine to Bronze Age myths and superstitions to My Little Pony to ... dare I say it ... hope.

Not many people have even heard of Thermodynamics, much less understand it.

And you're telling me that their beliefs, or more to the point the lack of comprehension and flat-out disinterest of modern physics, does not influence their behavior?

No, friend, what I've said is quite relevant.

What you're doing is attempting to turn it into a red herring and drawing unneeded attention to minutiae. It's neither. Follow the flow of my writing top-to-bottom. It fits.

All I'm doing is trying to make a point. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I really do stand behind what I've said. You are free to disagree. And that's fine. You're not alone.

> Also, our star is around 1% of the mass required to form a black hole, if that.

I stand corrected. It will collapse to form a white dwarf after it burns away what's left of a dead planet previously known as Earth.

Details.

> By all means, keep science in the discussion, we need it, but lets stick to facts that are relevant. I'd do some actual studying and work with thermodynamics before you try to talk about, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics of course you may need a few years of elementary calculus and physics before it makes any sense. have fun, i've done it.

Hmmmm, I think I may have studied elementary calculus and physics before I studied:

• college-level chemistry (what can you tell the class about Gibbs Free Energy?)
  
• organic chemistry
  
• multivariate calculus
  
• linear algebra
  
• differential equations (ordinary and partial)
  
• engineering (calculus-based) physics
  
• topology
  
• real analysis
  
• complex analysis
  
  ... aaaaaaand
  
  
• psychology
  
  Do I need to re-take them so that I can be more smug like you?
  
  > A better argument would have been to say that we are utterly insignificant in the grandest scheme of things.
  
  I do agree with that statement. And that would be quite satisfying if I wanted to toy with memes. Yes, the universe doesn't exist for us. It's > 99% dark matter / dark energy, and less than 1% us. Big deal.
  
  Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to practical science.
  
  I'd rather strive for understanding than latch on to soundbites and convenient explanations.
  
  In closing, before you make authoritative statements like these:
  
  > Please leave the 2nd law of thermo out of any and all discussions about TRP and our planet.
  
  Try to remember this:
  
  > Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. - Carl Sagan
  
  Now, hopefully, we can get back to my point.
  

> What is your take on therapy? Is it useful in any sense? Does it matter on whether a female or male therapist is involved?

A therapist is probably no better than any other person.

>> Dawes (social and decision sciences, Carnegie Mellon Univ.) presents a strong argument, based on empirical research, that psychotherapy is largely a shill game. He argues that while studies have shown that empathetic therapy is often helpful to people in emotional distress, there is no evidence that licensed psychologists or psychiatrists are any better at performing therapy than minimally trained laypeople.

However, those are averages. There may be truly gifted people who can offer deep insight. They'd be hard to find among the tens of thousands of useless psych degrees awarded yearly though.

> What about women who don't want kids?

Broken or lying. Perhaps also to herself.

Ethics has been the subject of philosophers since time immemorial. There are no moral absolutes for sure, but there is no man without morals. Everything we do is an expression of our moral code. Even amoralism (i.e. complete utilitarianism) is a moral philosophy. I think TRPers often forget the vast differences between the moral codes of people.

I highly recommend this book for a concise but surprisingly deep review of moral philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199773556/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Now, closer to your question, for what it's worth i have always aligned myself closer to the Stoics, and i m getting closer and closer over the years. So yes, i do follow a moral code, although i continuously scrutinize it as well. In the end , it DOES matter whether you have lived your life morally as a source of ultimate satisfaction that you will get in the end of your life. I would think, if i had to give up all morals to become king of the world, i would feel a sense that i've betrayed myself in the end and be equally dissatisfied.

It's obviously not an answerable question, and one that will be with you for your entire life.