Philosophy

[Kurokami]

I need to know if there is still hope in this world, if there are still people out there questioning truth, i want you to put up your favorite Philosophical idea, that you thought up yourself, here is mine to get started

"Love, or what we call Love, is not something that just one word can encompass, it is what we live, it is ourselves, our neighbors and the very air we breath, Love is more than just what we feel when we like a girl or a boy, it is everything." -Eric Lambert (2010)

Uhhh... Interesting, sounds more like poetry to me somehow.

I've a definition and guideline explaining morals, but it'd be quite wordy and take a while to write, this doesn't really seem to be what you looked for when you said 'philosophy', either.

poetry and philosophy are close to the same, both are just abstract outlooks on like trying to explain something greater than you could imagine

The philosophy I'm thinking about is rather a logical argument to explain and discuss things that don't need it. Such as, what is art? How do you value morals? Or slightly perhaps ethical issues and the like such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. What I like about it is that it follows a logical path.

 

[antigodoflife]

if a kitten is mauled by a bear in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

I can't imagine a cat making to much or a noise while being mauled by a bear anyway... so still no.

 

[Uzigawa]

I need to know if there is still hope in this world, if there are still people out there questioning truth, i want you to put up your favorite Philosophical idea, that you thought up yourself, here is mine to get started

"Love, or what we call Love, is not something that just one word can encompass, it is what we live, it is ourselves, our neighbors and the very air we breath, Love is more than just what we feel when we like a girl or a boy, it is everything." -Eric Lambert (2010)

Uhhh... Interesting, sounds more like poetry to me somehow.

I've a definition and guideline explaining morals, but it'd be quite wordy and take a while to write, this doesn't really seem to be what you looked for when you said 'philosophy', either.

poetry and philosophy are close to the same, both are just abstract outlooks on like trying to explain something greater than you could imagine

The philosophy I'm thinking about is rather a logical argument to explain and discuss things that don't need it. Such as, what is art? How do you value morals? Or slightly perhaps ethical issues and the like such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. What I like about it is that it follows a logical path.

i respectfully beg to differ in my opinion, for i see philosophy as more fluid and poetic, in a state of mind where anything can happen, where everything can be logically possible, that is pure poetry, food for my soul, i thrive on the idea that anything we dream, could be possible in the future,that's what keeps me from just ending it all every day, just knowing that someday, someone or something could come around and make me happy, through some form of chaos theory-esque series of events

 

[Uzigawa]

"The fire always feels hotter when you put your hand in it, but you must do so once, to learn" - eric lambert

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Thought it was a fairly well established conundrum that you dont know if the kittens actually dead till you open the box so the kitten could still be alive up until when you open it.

That's not quite how Schrodinger's Cat works. The idea is that the cat exists as dead and alive simultaneously, until it is observed to be either one.

The cat exists as both dead and alive simultaneously, until the box is opened, at which point it collapses into a state of being either dead or really, really pissed off about being shut in a box. Dead is probably safer for everyone (apart from the cat)

OT: I once had a very long discussion with a friend about the line "with great power comes great responsibility", and whether power and responsibility were mutually exclusive or not; whether power automatically led to responsibility and vice-versa. Is that suitably philosophical for you?
EDIT: Power does indeed lead to responsibility; this doesn't mean an entity with power will necessarily accept this culpability for their actions (or, indeed, inactions). The real question is whether responsibility leads to power. Theoretically it does, but it depends on the individual with the responsibility as to whether or not they recognise this power and/or use it.

 

[Uzigawa]

Thought it was a fairly well established conundrum that you dont know if the kittens actually dead till you open the box so the kitten could still be alive up until when you open it.

That's not quite how Schrodinger's Cat works. The idea is that the cat exists as dead and alive simultaneously, until it is observed to be either one.

The cat exists as both dead and alive simultaneously, until the box is opened, at which point it collapses into a state of being either dead or really, really pissed off about being shut in a box. Dead is probably safer for everyone (apart from the cat)

OT: I once had a very long discussion with a friend about the line "with great power comes great responsibility", and whether power and responsibility were mutually exclusive or not; whether power automatically led to responsibility and vice-versa. Is that suitably philosophical for you?

yes, actually, never really thought about it, but both sides are correct, one creates the other, responsibility gives you something to have power and dominion over, while power gives you responsibility in which you must not abuse your power, no argument there, both are true

 

[Playbahnosh]

"It is not accurate to say that there is horror in the universe. The universe is horror."
Dr. Werner Heisenberg, physicist

This thread got me thinking, Schrodinger, Descartes, etc. It's interesting, that everyone has some form of philosophy that they think is right. What I think, there is no right or wrong, good or bad, there is only opinion and the views of people. You should really read Embrace the Horror by David Wong [http://www.cracked.com/article_15746_embrace-horror.html].

Right and wrong only exist in people's minds. As asked in this thread, if a cat is mauled by a bear in the forrest, does it make a sound? Most people would think yes, why wouldn't it. But actually, we don't know, we can only presume it does deducing from our experiences, but that's not good enough.

For millennia science and philosophy was one and the same. Astrology, religions, even natural phenomenons were both scientific and philosophical things where observation and faith mixed to produce half-scientific half-religious texts, like the Bible. What they couldn't prove, explain or measure, they substituted with faith, gods and stories. Then the Greek separated the two fields on the terms that what you can measure and explain is science, what you can't is philosophy. They were considered separate for centuries, but as time passed they came closer and closer together and now today we have one unifying field that encompasses both: quantum physics. I know there is more to it than that, but this post is already tl;dr so I won't go into it...

In quantum physics, they found that even the mere action of simply observing can change the nature of things. It is connected to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle], the theory of the man I quoted in the beginning of the post. The gist of it say, that the more precisely you observe one property of something, the less certain you can be about the other properties. It gets even weirder as you go deeper in the subject. The double-slit experiment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_of_experiment] demonstrated the Observer Effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29#Quantum_mechanics], that an electron can behave like a wave and a particle at the same time, depending on you are observing it or not. It is theorized, that when not observed, the outcome of an event is in a state of so called "superposition", it exists in all possible states at once. Just like Schroedinger's Cat, it's both alive and dead until you open the box to make sure. When you open it, it will jump to one (and only one) of the possible outcomes because of the mere action of observing. What happens in the box before you open it, it's impossible to know.

A huge waterfall you see, the gleaming droplets in the sun, it's awesome. But when you leave, the awesome goes with you. What happens when there is no one to observe the waterfall? Is it still "awesome"? Superposition. This questions the notions of faith and destiny. If the outcome of an event is not decided until someone goes to observe it, what decides the outcome? Is it random? Is it predetermined? Even our own choices in life, the decisions we make. We can't know the outcome of something until we decide how to proceed, but how do we actually decide something? When we chose one of the many possible outcomes, what precedes that action? Even we, and our brains, are bio-chemical machines, acting and reacting to outside stimuli by preset bio-chemical reactions and thought patterns. Does free will actually exists, or is it only an illusion?

These are the questions I wanna know the answers to. So tl;dr me

 

[Killerscape]

"Live in the day that your in. There will not be a tomorrow"

 

[Uzigawa]

religion has it's good sides and bad, i don't like blindly believing, i'm a logical mind, but the foundation it sets down for the young to grow on is overall a good platform, teaching what is right and wrong, even if i disagree on what they think is right sometimes (gay marriage, etc.) but, religion is necessary for logical minds to work, it's like light without dark, fire without ice, we need something to base things on, and religion is a good jumping board (btw, yes, i'm athiest, and bi, so thats why i'm a little pissed about the whole opposition to gay marriage cause one day i'd actually like to be happy with my boyfriend)

Small history lesson here.

Contrary to popular belief, Christianity does NOT condemn homosexuality.

I'll let that sink in for a minute...





Okay, what it DOES condemn is the practice of anal sex between men. By the same token, it condemns EVERY sexual practice which cannot result in reproduction. Now, the Church's idiotic focus on sex as pure baby-making has resulted in some of the all time greatest hits in the history of retardedness, such as Aquinas declaring that masturbation or fellatio was a worse sin than incest or even rape, since the latter could result in babies. I think a tactical facepalm is in order here.
Let's remember that Christian sexual morals originated with the Israelites, who were a small people surrounded by larger and more powerful enemies. So logically, the order of the day was to make as many babies as possible and raise them according to the Hebrew Bible - and if you were off masturbating or fucking men in the arse, then, to paraphrase Monty Python, you were wasting sperm, and God was bound to get quite irate.

So now, why is it that many people (Christians included) think that Christians "hate fags", as the Phelpses so succinctly put it?

Well, one has to differentiate between what one "does" and what one "is" and when those two were the same.

Look at your last name. If you come from a European background, odds are, you'll be called Smith, or Miller, or Farmer (or Fabbri, Meunier, or Bauer). That is because until relatively recently, you literally were what you did. There were no notions of individual innate leanings or such things as "personality" and "character" - the predecessors of psychology only starting shaping our consciousness since, oh, the late 1600s, and those didn't really take hold until the late 19th century. §211 of the German penal code still says "who does this and that is a murderer".

Christianity cannot condemn someone for what he is. That runs counter to everything it stands for. And therein lies the crux; the Church, ponderous thing as it is, still has not been able to adapt to the paradigm of people "being" something. So to the Church's way of thinking, everybody is born the same, it's just that some men like fucking women in their vaginas (good) and some others like fucking men in the tradesman's (bad). It still has to come to grips with the notion that bisexuals and homosexuals are born that way, that they cannot help being who they are, and that therefore, condemning them is literally THE LEAST CHRISTIAN THING that a person can do.

good ol' hipocracy, now ima hurt and help my argument a little here, just cause i must, as a fair man, point out what i know, first off, the church doesn't just heed the bible, that would be like if the constitution was our only set of laws, they must adapt old rules to what they believe, the bible doesnt codemn abortions but there they are outside the clinic making people's lives worse, but on the other hand, you know the saying, the victor writes the history books? or something like that, well in the vatican after the churches broke up, roman catholic came out on top, and codemned sodomy, which pretty much was either sex with a woman other than missionary position, or sex with something not a human woman (men, animals) so that is now an accepted belief and general rule in christian culture, the irony is that it is a religion that claims to accept everyone,there was a movie on lifetime that i saw called prayers for bobby (sad, but good movie btw) and in it, after her gay son kills himself over the stress his mother gives him for his life choice, she goes to a priest to learn more, and he taught her, in a positive light towards homosexuality, anyways off course, my view may be bias because of my sexuality, but really, what harm will it cause if me and my boyfriend were to wed tomorrow? it's not like we're fucking out in the car in front of everyone (we make sure the coast is clear for that) anyways, off topic to the max

 

[Chogg Van Helsing]

'Is something Pious because God said it is so, or Does God say it is pious because it already was?'

dumbed down version:
Is something good cause God says so, or is it good independant of god?

That would be the Euphero Dilema, told to Euphero by Socartes.

 

[RYjet911]

Philosophy kind of annoys me...

Especially when people call random, single line quotes philosophy. Some bloke a while back said something and a hundred years later it's suddenly profound and meaningful. They probably didn't even say it, it's just a well known intelligent face (i.e. all the Albert Einstein posters with the quotes on and stuff like that) for a somewhat intelligent sentence.

Then there's the more 'proper' form of philosophy, but even that is mostly just questioning why to everything, assuming everything has this 'why?' answer. I don't get how you have great philosophers of the past. They were usually old, non-working bums who didn't do anything aside from sit around thinking about stuff. They were like the anarchist students of today.

How about learning HOW the world works instead of why. How is easier to figure out, because there is a very defined and specific explanation for how things work where as there's very rarely a why things work, they just do. Plus, you get the added bonus of being able to apply how something works to other stuff, and can become a great scientist or engineer or something. Then you can make all these 'philosophical' quotes and get on a poster!

 

[Uzigawa]

'Is something Pious because God said it is so, or Does God say it is pious because it already was?'

dumbed down version:
Is something good cause God says so, or is it good independant of god?

That would be the Euphero Dilema, told to Euphero by Socartes.

well, one thing can not be good to everyone aside from you know, food, and oxygen, so it is a personal question like the chicken and the egg, if you are religious, then you say that the chicken was made first, and if you are evolutionist then the egg came first through natural selection, this is the same scenario, so, either you believed it was good, then god happen to share your view, or you didn't think it was good, and religion changed your view, so really you can learn a lot by asking this, are they open to change, etc.

 

[Kurokami]

i respectfully beg to differ in my opinion, for i see philosophy as more fluid and poetic, in a state of mind where anything can happen, where everything can be logically possible, that is pure poetry, food for my soul, i thrive on the idea that anything we dream, could be possible in the future,that's what keeps me from just ending it all every day, just knowing that someday, someone or something could come around and make me happy, through some form of chaos theory-esque series of events

Out of curiousity, and purely because I'm interested in seeing whether my guess is accurate, are you 13-17? I don't see age as an insult so please don't take it so as it honestly isn't my intention (though you're welcome to ask why).

In any case, that seems a rather dim resolve, may I ask what makes life so depressing for you? What drives me is the ability to think rationally and logically, I also have very high principles and seeing people abide by them on occasion is nice. Going to University its very irritating for me to see how... Discourteous and frustrating people can be.

In any case...

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Aphilosophy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

I lol'ed at your Aristotelian pseudo-logic quote.

Nietzsche would mindfuck you in 3 seconds.

 

[Uzigawa]

Philosophy kind of annoys me...

Especially when people call random, single line quotes philosophy. Some bloke a while back said something and a hundred years later it's suddenly profound and meaningful. They probably didn't even say it, it's just a well known intelligent face (i.e. all the Albert Einstein posters with the quotes on and stuff like that) for a somewhat intelligent sentence.

Then there's the more 'proper' form of philosophy, but even that is mostly just questioning why to everything, assuming everything has this 'why?' answer. I don't get how you have great philosophers of the past. They were usually old, non-working bums who didn't do anything aside from sit around thinking about stuff. They were like the anarchist students of today.

How about learning HOW the world works instead of why. How is easier to figure out, because there is a very defined and specific explanation for how things work where as there's very rarely a why things work, they just do. Plus, you get the added bonus of being able to apply how something works to other stuff, and can become a great scientist or engineer or something. Then you can make all these 'philosophical' quotes and get on a poster!

you realize you just compared great minds of the past to some kids hanging in a circle, the majority of these philosophers where people who's lives were lived, they were at the end, they'd experienced and learned more than another could in 2 life times, they questioned what they thought needed questioning, to fight until their belief was respected, these men had more wisdom in (i know it's cliche) their little fingers than these "anarchist kids" have in their whole bodies, oh and the little quotes, you're not supposed to read the line, you think about it, think what it means to you it's a game of self-exploration and discovering more about the world behind you, i'm not saying i'm experienced at all, i just hate when people can't look into something deeper than the words on the computer.

 

[Uzigawa]

i respectfully beg to differ in my opinion, for i see philosophy as more fluid and poetic, in a state of mind where anything can happen, where everything can be logically possible, that is pure poetry, food for my soul, i thrive on the idea that anything we dream, could be possible in the future,that's what keeps me from just ending it all every day, just knowing that someday, someone or something could come around and make me happy, through some form of chaos theory-esque series of events

Out of curiousity, and purely because I'm interested in seeing whether my guess is accurate, are you 13-17? I don't see age as an insult so please don't take it so as it honestly isn't my intention (though you're welcome to ask why).

In any case, that seems a rather dim resolve, may I ask what makes life so depressing for you? What drives me is the ability to think rationally and logically, I also have very high principles and seeing people abide by them on occasion is nice. Going to University its very irritating for me to see how... Discourteous and frustrating people can be.

In any case...

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Aphilosophy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

just on the edge mate, 17, 18 late this year, and the dim outlook is a combination,
1. i'm coping with my parents divorce, and yes i know, it's something i blow out of porportion,
2. the world we live in is fucked up(cliche i know)
3. pure old fashioned mental instabilities, suspected bipolar disorder from my mom's side

EDIT: oh, and the definition, i see a definition as a base to jump from when taking the meaning of a word to new heights in your personal view, every world to me can have a second meaning, some memory or hope, or thought attatched to it

 

[Uzigawa]

and yes, i know i'm way too young to be trying to put my view on the world out there

EDIT: i've just lived a bit more than some at my age, like for instance, did you know people in mental hospitals are super interesting, no shit, once saw a guy run into a metal riot door, and bent it in half

 

[Uzigawa]

anyway, enough of that whole sidetrack

Edit: wow, everyone got really quiet fast

 

[Uzigawa]

oh here's a good philosophical quote "my mama said...life...is like a box of chocolates"

 

[GLo Jones]

i respectfully beg to differ in my opinion, for i see philosophy as more fluid and poetic, in a state of mind where anything can happen, where everything can be logically possible, that is pure poetry, food for my soul, i thrive on the idea that anything we dream, could be possible in the future,that's what keeps me from just ending it all every day, just knowing that someday, someone or something could come around and make me happy, through some form of chaos theory-esque series of events

Out of curiousity, and purely because I'm interested in seeing whether my guess is accurate, are you 13-17? I don't see age as an insult so please don't take it so as it honestly isn't my intention (though you're welcome to ask why).

In any case, that seems a rather dim resolve, may I ask what makes life so depressing for you? What drives me is the ability to think rationally and logically, I also have very high principles and seeing people abide by them on occasion is nice. Going to University its very irritating for me to see how... Discourteous and frustrating people can be.

In any case...

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Aphilosophy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

just on the edge mate, 17, 18 late this year, and the dim outlook is a combination,
1. i'm coping with my parents divorce, and yes i know, it's something i blow out of porportion,
2. the world we live in is fucked up(cliche i know)
3. pure old fashioned mental instabilities, suspected bipolar disorder from my mom's side

EDIT: oh, and the definition, i see a definition as a base to jump from when taking the meaning of a word to new heights in your personal view, every world to me can have a second meaning, some memory or hope, or thought attatched to it

Then this is no longer philosophy. This is much more a form of poetic expression of thought. Granted, philosophy is seen as taking a step back, and looking at thing from as outside a perspective as you can (and respecting that you can never truly have an absolute outside perspective), but the moment you add fantasy (and you have (see your initial post on love for the perfect example)) is becomes nothing more than a fancy form of expression.

Philosophy is logic, with all form of faith removed (or it is now religion no longer plays such a large part in politics), the moment you bring in your own feelings and intuition, you're fooling yourself.