Philosophy

[Uzigawa]

wow, this thread has surpassed my expectations, expected like maybe 20-30 posts, gratz people, faith in humanity un-terminated

 

[SpecklePattern]

Imagine my disappointment coming into this thread thinking it was going to be about philosophy, when it's really about failed submissions to the Hallmark Card Corporation and witty credos. Questioning truth without establishing a set definition for knowledge is sorta silly. I haven't really come across any definition of knowledge that I don't find troubling in some way.

Amen.

Well should I quote myself in this thread? Fine I'll write something.

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)

"Phrase: 'Questioning truth' is undefined and meaningless. Many still tend to do it. Questioning does not change the truth that someone, or the person questioning, has set. Also truth is always subjective. Sometimes many observers all agree that some amount of statements and/or view on some phenomenon is 'truth'. The truth is still in the mind of the observer and I think thus subjective. Although I do realize that this view about truth might not be the truth about truth for me or my fellow escapists as it exists in our minds and constantly changes we we all change." -SpecklePattern (2010)

 

[Uzigawa]

I was just smiling at our esteemed OP starting a philo thread, and then recoiling from the first paragraph of a long-ass book.

don't blame me, blame the ADD, trust me if it wasnt for the interesting things in here, i'd have passed out by now, but i am intrigued to say the least on most everything that people are saying

 

[Uzigawa]

"Phrase: 'Questioning truth' is undefined and meaningless. Many still tend to do it. Questioning does not change the truth that someone, or the person questioning, has set. Also truth is always subjective. Sometimes many observers all agree that some amount of statements and/or view on some phenomenon is 'truth'. The truth is still in the mind of the observer and I think thus subjective. Although I do realize that this view about truth might not be the truth about truth for me or my fellow escapists as it exists in our minds and constantly changes we we all change." -SpecklePattern (2010)

why must everyone take me so literally on the least important part of my post? i simply used it to abstractly ask for some inventive quotations to defy social standards, think outside the box you could say, and anyways, why make asking questions about the answer? i believe asking a question should be about the adventure of asking, not the answer itself, it's like living your whole life looking forward to death, and not enjoying the ride to it, you have to enjoy the little things.

 

[Uzigawa]

"Passion shall overcome all physical barrier, one must simply have passion to succeed in life, the worst that can happen is you fail in life, but you go through it passionately never regretting your decisions" - Eric Lambert (if you haven't guessed yet, that's my name)

 

[Chefodeath]

Unfortunately, normal human beings don't live in that kind of philosophical world. Rather than fine wines 30 years old, most would rather have a Skinny Blonde, or a Bud Light of all things. I understand that a complex and subtle take on the world would take a great many pages to express, but 1900 is deliberate padding and smacks of elitism.

What is the point in discovering a lense with which to view the world if you can't share it with anyone who's not in your comfy armchair club?

Half of it is just about the concept of fear, actually...

That said, I'm a beer man myself. I am aware that most people have other things to do than read what Schopenhauer, Leopardi or Foucault had to say, at great length, about the world (as far as the latter goes, I'm with them, total waste of time).

I was just smiling at our esteemed OP starting a philo thread, and then recoiling from the first paragraph of a long-ass book.

That text block, its in regard to how philosophers discredit the basic pillars of the things they build upon correct? How can for example, a man go about counting how many peacocks are pink when he has not even come to the conclusion of what the color pink is yet. Jumping ahead of ourselves as it were. That bothered me for a long time too, but I think philosophy is more inherently the perfecting of the processes leading to a conclusion than about the starting or finishing point. To this end, I suppose it doesn't matter that our starting points are non-fixed. Philosophy is dependent on some assumptions I suppose.

Pre-fucking-cisely. The whole point of it is not about finding answers, it's about asking the right questions and then observing yourself while you struggle with them. Still, what Kierkegaard laments is that people "move right on" without acquiring even the most basic knowledge. Some pillars are indeed necessary - I, for one, will refuse to take Mr Dawkins seriously until he can prove to me that he has read Paul's letters, Augustine's De Civitate Dei, and one other major work of theology.

My one philosophy in life is to steer well clear of anybody and anything that promises easy answers. In the text I quoted, Kierkegaard, a man so fucking smart that I stare in awe at a sentence at least once per page, takes the story of Abraham and Isaac, and struggles with it. I mean, literally, struggles like Kratos fighting Hades or something. He proposes four possible solutions, yet seems satisfied with neither of them - but at this point, he has given the reader the tools to grapple with the issue himself (btw, has anyone noticed how in the English language, the words one uses for how people deal with issues perfectly illustrate that learning and debating are HARD?). One of Kierkegaard's possible conclusions is that Abraham's faith was broken. If you spin that further - Abraham being the biblical father of all peoples - that means that faith never existed. Quite a kick in the balls.

Compare that to fundamentalist Christians and atheists, for example, who will flat out tell you that that tale (http://www.ccel.org/k/kierkegaard/selections/trembling.htm) is either ONLY about how one must be faithful and trust in God, or ONLY about how religion is violent and demands blind obedience and is therefore evil.

As usual, both are morons.

Hmm, Kierkegaard, I'll have to read into him. But yes, atheists and christians are two halves of the same coin. But you realize the implications of calling them morons don't you? Both sides are trying to assert a single truth, to simply answer the question. They find themselves instead wrapped in endless debate with neither side getting closer to a conclusion.

Kierkegaard chooses to revel in the tedium between the conflicting sides, he examines all points against the other and suffers under their weight. And the reward for his labours, is he any closer to an answer? Not really. The philosopher does not bother for truth, he lives in the question. I can't think of any other way to describe that then fucked up.

 

[Uzigawa]

Unfortunately, normal human beings don't live in that kind of philosophical world. Rather than fine wines 30 years old, most would rather have a Skinny Blonde, or a Bud Light of all things. I understand that a complex and subtle take on the world would take a great many pages to express, but 1900 is deliberate padding and smacks of elitism.

What is the point in discovering a lense with which to view the world if you can't share it with anyone who's not in your comfy armchair club?

Half of it is just about the concept of fear, actually...

That said, I'm a beer man myself. I am aware that most people have other things to do than read what Schopenhauer, Leopardi or Foucault had to say, at great length, about the world (as far as the latter goes, I'm with them, total waste of time).

I was just smiling at our esteemed OP starting a philo thread, and then recoiling from the first paragraph of a long-ass book.

That text block, its in regard to how philosophers discredit the basic pillars of the things they build upon correct? How can for example, a man go about counting how many peacocks are pink when he has not even come to the conclusion of what the color pink is yet. Jumping ahead of ourselves as it were. That bothered me for a long time too, but I think philosophy is more inherently the perfecting of the processes leading to a conclusion than about the starting or finishing point. To this end, I suppose it doesn't matter that our starting points are non-fixed. Philosophy is dependent on some assumptions I suppose.

Pre-fucking-cisely. The whole point of it is not about finding answers, it's about asking the right questions and then observing yourself while you struggle with them. Still, what Kierkegaard laments is that people "move right on" without acquiring even the most basic knowledge. Some pillars are indeed necessary - I, for one, will refuse to take Mr Dawkins seriously until he can prove to me that he has read Paul's letters, Augustine's De Civitate Dei, and one other major work of theology.

My one philosophy in life is to steer well clear of anybody and anything that promises easy answers. In the text I quoted, Kierkegaard, a man so fucking smart that I stare in awe at a sentence at least once per page, takes the story of Abraham and Isaac, and struggles with it. I mean, literally, struggles like Kratos fighting Hades or something. He proposes four possible solutions, yet seems satisfied with neither of them - but at this point, he has given the reader the tools to grapple with the issue himself (btw, has anyone noticed how in the English language, the words one uses for how people deal with issues perfectly illustrate that learning and debating are HARD?). One of Kierkegaard's possible conclusions is that Abraham's faith was broken. If you spin that further - Abraham being the biblical father of all peoples - that means that faith never existed. Quite a kick in the balls.

Compare that to fundamentalist Christians and atheists, for example, who will flat out tell you that that tale (http://www.ccel.org/k/kierkegaard/selections/trembling.htm) is either ONLY about how one must be faithful and trust in God, or ONLY about how religion is violent and demands blind obedience and is therefore evil.

As usual, both are morons.

Hmm, Kierkegaard, I'll have to read into him. But yes, atheists and christians are two halves of the same coin. But you realize the implications of calling them morons don't you? Both sides are trying to assert a single truth, to simply answer the question. They find themselves instead wrapped in endless debate with neither side getting closer to a conclusion.

Kierkegaard chooses to revel in the tedium between the conflicting sides, he examines all points against the other and suffers under their weight. And the reward for his labours, is he any closer to an answer? Not really. The philosopher does not bother for truth, he lives in the question. I can't think of any other way to describe that then fucked up.

wow, you guys are gettin into it, i don't understand about 80% of the conversation, i'm fresh outa high school, so i'm not so edumacated

 

[grimsprice]

Hmm, Kierkegaard, I'll have to read into him. But yes, atheists and christians are two halves of the same coin. But you realize the implications of calling them morons don't you? Both sides are trying to assert a single truth, to simply answer the question. They find themselves instead wrapped in endless debate with neither side getting closer to a conclusion.

Kierkegaard chooses to revel in the tedium between the conflicting sides, he examines all points against the other and suffers under their weight. And the reward for his labours, is he any closer to an answer? Not really. The philosopher does not bother for truth, he lives in the question. I can't think of any other way to describe that then fucked up.

As i said to a friend of mine who knew nothing about philosophy, but extolled its virtues... why spend your entire life pulling gears out of the machinery of your mind and postulating what your life would be like if it was a different piece instead? That seems pointless to me.

Let your mind be what it is. Understand it! Certainly, endeavor to "get it". But let it be.

 

[Uzigawa]

"I find it kinda funny, i find it kinda sad, the dreams in which i'm dying are the best i've ever had" - Gary Joules "Mad World"

 

[Uzigawa]

Hmm, Kierkegaard, I'll have to read into him. But yes, atheists and christians are two halves of the same coin. But you realize the implications of calling them morons don't you? Both sides are trying to assert a single truth, to simply answer the question. They find themselves instead wrapped in endless debate with neither side getting closer to a conclusion.

Kierkegaard chooses to revel in the tedium between the conflicting sides, he examines all points against the other and suffers under their weight. And the reward for his labours, is he any closer to an answer? Not really. The philosopher does not bother for truth, he lives in the question. I can't think of any other way to describe that then fucked up.

As i said to a friend of mine who knew nothing about philosophy, but extolled its virtues... why spend your entire life pulling gears out of the machinery of your mind and postulating what your life would be like if it was a different piece instead? That seems pointless to me.

Let your mind be what it is. Understand it! Certainly, but let it be.

refering to my earlier quote, why live forever if you can't enjoy life's little sins? why would i eat healthy, stop smoking and drinking, and sex, to live longer, why would i want to live longer if i can't enjoy the good parts of life, i intend to die in my 50's, if i live to be 60, i did something wrong

 

[Uzigawa]

so glad that some people out there still actually question widely accepted ideas, i feel like a greek philosopher in a circle with other philosophers, except that we're on the internet, and probably a little more immature

 

[Uzigawa]

Hmm, Kierkegaard, I'll have to read into him. But yes, atheists and christians are two halves of the same coin. But you realize the implications of calling them morons don't you? Both sides are trying to assert a single truth, to simply answer the question. They find themselves instead wrapped in endless debate with neither side getting closer to a conclusion.

Semantics, maybe, but as far as I can see, they HAVE both reached a conclusion. The difference is that they fight over its universal validity. That's what I have a problem with.

Kierkegaard chooses to revel in the tedium between the conflicting sides, he examines all points against the other and suffers under their weight. And the reward for his labours, is he any closer to an answer? Not really. The philosopher does not bother for truth, he lives in the question. I can't think of any other way to describe that then fucked up.

Who says that he doesn't? The philosopher is free to arrive at his own answers - but it is his job to present them as his own while he keeps asking questions. You see, on a certain level, I have no problem with the aforementioned fundamentalist POVs. If you say that to you, faith equals blind obedience in God, cool. If you say that for you, religion is worthless and dangerous, outstanding. I do start to get pissed off, however, when you try to convince me to accept your view as the only valid one. Fuck you, I'll keep thinking for myself, if you don't awfully mind. In hermeneutics, the thing I hate most is some dude telling me what the author was trying to say; way to not understand literature...

Questions are universal; answers are individual. Anybody who tells me that their answers apply to me can go fuck right off.

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)

 

[Uzigawa]

Life is only a dream and we are merely an imagination of ourselves - Bill Hicks

funny you say that, i used to think something similar, i was convinced that we are merely at the end of our lives, and these things we see and think are just memories of what has happened, explaining deja vu and such, i quickly realised the major flaw in this being that, how could this be possible if i am thinking about it right now?

Funny, it's not like I live my life taking that quote seriously. It's just a guideline and I just happen to like it a lot. And I'm not too sure about the flaw you're indicating. It doesn't have to mean a memory. I suppose this quote can be open to interpretation, it doesn't have to mean one thing.

the inherent flaw with my theory is that the idea could not form if it was true, for i wouldn't think it was a flashback if it was, it would feel normal, i couldn't possibly recognize something that wouldn't exist or take place at the time that i theorized, you see, cause the flashback would be living normally, thus i wouldn't feel like i was in a flashback, making me not notice, it gets complex yet simple as all hell at one point

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Necrofudge]

I don't currently have my own but I would like to analyze yours. Mainly because it says that love = life and is everywhere. A popular idea in the 1960s, but I can probably find some lonely fat roommates o' mine that could disagree, cynical as they are.

 

[Chameliondude]

I did philosophy for a year, was pretty rubbish as you tend to loop the same problem for ages without actually solving it, mostly because you can never prove the argument wrong, however stupid it is.

eg. If i believe the universe was created a second ago exactly how it is and will be destoyed in the next second, i cant be proved wrong as long as i constantly believe this as we are stuck in the present and cannot prove the past or future, stupid eh..

There was one good argument i heard though, First imagine a perfect batman so you can conclude this Batman is the greatest possible human, it is greater for a being to exist in reality as well as the understanding, therefore batman exists in reality... you can use this to prove anything.. yay

 

[Uzigawa]

I don't currently have my own but I would like to analyze yours. Mainly because it says that love = life and is everywhere. A popular idea in the 1960s, but I can probably find some lonely fat roommates o' mine that could disagree, cynical as they are.

i dont have the roomate thing, just a fat, mildly lonely person, if i have an idea for an invention or an outlook on life, i say it, he claims he thought of it years ago, then pokes holes in the idea, and my self-esteem, that dick

 

[Uzigawa]

I did philosophy for a year, was pretty rubbish as you tend to loop the same problem for ages without actually solving it, mostly because you can never prove the argument wrong, however stupid it is.

eg. If i believe the universe was created a second ago exactly how it is and will be destoyed in the next second, i cant be proved wrong as long as i constantly believe this as we are stuck in the present and cannot prove the past or future, stupid eh..

There was one good argument i heard though, First imagine a perfect batman so you can conclude this Batman is the greatest possible human, it is greater for a being to exist in reality as well as the understanding, therefore batman exists in reality... you can use this to prove anything.. yay

i...wh....what...i..can't.....*brain explode* no idea what that means, mind explaining it without batman and a little more detail?

 

[Uzigawa]

seriously, totally lost me upon mentioning of batman