This new study makes LA look like a pigsty.

[Giest4life]

No, sir. It's not the famous "I think therefore I am."

This is Nietzsche's take on Descartes's assertion. The literal meaning is: "I am, therefore I think." Of course I am not going to be arsed to explain Nietzsche's epistemological views to anyone---they are too complicated and too controversial.

Descartes is a philosophical archetype; I don't find him to be interesting, it's what he began that is more interesting to historians than to philosophers.

If you want to "know" more, I suggest you read up on David Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. These three perhaps summarize the entire of the three prevalent epistemological factions in our world.

And yes, they do cause minor brain explosions.

 

[mad825]

what does this really matter?

If the universe is truly infinite then the amount of stars in the universe is infinite. As to what the study may suggest, It only counts to what we can see right now.

 

[Giest4life]

EDIT: Sorry, double posted :S

 

[loc978]

on the topic of our insignificance...

Spoiler: click to begin...

 

[zfactor]

No, sir. It's not the famous "I think therefore I am."

This is Nietzsche's take on Descartes's assertion. The literal meaning is: "I am, therefore I think." Of course I am not going to be arsed to explain Nietzsche's epistemological views to anyone---they are too complicated and too controversial.

Descartes is a philosophical archetype; I don't find him to be interesting, it's what he began that is more interesting to historians than to philosophers.

If you want to "know" more, I suggest you read up on David Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. These three perhaps summarize the entire of the three prevalent epistemological factions in our world.

And yes, they do cause minor brain explosions.

Whoops, sorry...

But I thouhgt we were trying to prove the "I am" part, so you can't use it as a premise...

Also, Descartes pisses me off. His Discourse is full of contradictions and false conclusions. He did start the math movement and stuff, but I read it recently and find it to be annoying.

 

[Giest4life]

No, sir. It's not the famous "I think therefore I am."

This is Nietzsche's take on Descartes's assertion. The literal meaning is: "I am, therefore I think." Of course I am not going to be arsed to explain Nietzsche's epistemological views to anyone---they are too complicated and too controversial.

Descartes is a philosophical archetype; I don't find him to be interesting, it's what he began that is more interesting to historians than to philosophers.

If you want to "know" more, I suggest you read up on David Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. These three perhaps summarize the entire of the three prevalent epistemological factions in our world.

And yes, they do cause minor brain explosions.

Whoops, sorry...

But I thouhgt we were trying to prove the "I am" part, so you can't use it as a premise...

Also, Descartes pisses me off. His Discourse is full of contradictions and false conclusions. He did start the math movement and stuff, but I read it recently and find it to be annoying.

Oh, I'm not trying to prove anything. Because nothing can proven to the extent that it is beyond
all doubt. Objectivity is only a word for the modern age--an age that thinks it has knowledge.

Now, most people would assume that I'm talking out of my ass here, but no, sir, I'm not trolling anyone. It began with Descartes who kinda raised the question that what exactly constitutes as knowledge. Two schools of thoughts branched out: the empiricism and rationalism. Rationalism lay claim that objective knowledge--or any knowledge at all--could only be achieved through pure rationalizing i.e. math and such. Empiricism, is well, claims that all knowledge is based on empirical evidence, or as David Hume called it "impressions." Ever wondered where this cliche comes from: "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to here it. Does it make a sound?" It was George Berkley, a predecessor of David Hume. And it basically means that we cannot know anything till we can physically experience it. And I agree.

David Hume fulfilled to its philosophical end where Berkley faltered. Since I don't mean to drag this on any longer, find me any single thing that you've thought of that does not have it's roots in a physical impression. And I really do mean anything--even time. Though time and casuality is a bit more complex idea than "impressions" and "reflexions (memories of physical impressions)"