| Blogs > zhul4nder |
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
Edit: On July 23 2010 06:27 ella_guru wrote: I'm going to make an educated guess - you think that talking about this stuff gives a sense of character and style/ Always one step ahead Ela. User was warned for this post | ||
|
zhul4nder
United States189 Posts
On July 23 2010 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote: Semantics about the two items aside, my point is this. There is a definite reality. That reality is what would exist if we didn't. This is the most basic and concrete reality of our universe. Humans (and to our knowledge no other creatures) are capable of an incredible thing - creativity. Our mind can mold our perceptions and ideas to mean so many different things. To me, this is a completely separate zone in comparison to reality - what exists outside of us. The quantity "3" exists outside of us in the universe. Our language and representation of it does not. How would you prove that reality exists with or without us? Everything you perceive could be nothing but an elaborate dream. There is nothing basic about reality at all. It completely depends on the perceiver. To you, your reality consists of this concrete universe that can exist without your acknowledgment. That's fine. But can you really say that reality is the same for another person without the ability to sense anything around them? What is concreteness? Unchanging? Sensible? Nothing in reality is completely concrete as you may suppose. It's always changing depending on our views and experiences. *sigh* you're such a socratic. How is what we call creativity truly ours if every abstract concept already exists outside of us? Creativity in your view is simply realizing some formation of what has already been. So in a sense, there is no such thing as creativity. Regarding the number 3 exercise, it doesn't matter if the concept of 3 exists outside of us. Your realization of the number 3 can only come into existence by acknowledging symbols learned from your sensible world. Reality is not real to you unless you perceive it, through both rational means and through your senses. Are you trying to argue that reality is the same for everyone in that 'unseen' land where 3 exists? @ Lexpar You've got a huge e-penis. You're better than me because you insult me because I'm trying to have some kind of response to my essay. I will promptly drown myself in my filth. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
How would you prove that reality exists with or without us? Everything you perceive could be nothing but an elaborate dream. There is nothing basic about reality at all. It completely depends on the perceiver. To you, your reality consists of this concrete universe that can exist without your acknowledgment. That's fine. But can you really say that reality is the same for another person without the ability to sense anything around them? What is concreteness? Unchanging? Sensible? Nothing in reality is completely concrete as you may suppose. It's always changing depending on our views and experiences. *sigh* you're such a socratic. How is what we call creativity truly ours if every abstract concept already exists outside of us? Creativity in your view is simply realizing some formation of what has already been. So in a sense, there is no such thing as creativity. Regarding the number 3 exercise, it doesn't matter if the concept of 3 exists outside of us. Your realization of the number 3 can only come into existence by acknowledging symbols learned from your sensible world. Reality is not real to you unless you perceive it, through both rational means and through your senses. Are you trying to argue that reality is the same for everyone in that 'unseen' land where 3 exists? @ Lexpar You've got a huge e-penis. You're better than me because you insult me because I'm trying to have some kind of response to my essay. I will promptly drown myself in my filth. All I see in this is human arrogance. We aren't the masters of the universe - we're one pathetic pinprick in an absolutely massive place of existence. Existence isn't dictated by what we can see. Just because we aren't intelligent enough to prove some things outside of our perceptions doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This kind of arrogance is why I hate some types of philosophy. | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
| ||
|
Vi)Chris
United States700 Posts
| ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
On July 23 2010 05:58 koreasilver wrote: So you've never actually studied Nietzsche. I don't understand how what I said would indicate that and really posting that one liner is very condescending. This is the attitude that I would expect when I play LoL, not posting on TL... Zhul4nder, if your class never made mention of John Searle/chinese room experiment I would recommend checking that out. I would throw out some other things to read surrounding the subject but it's been quite a while so my vocabulary is really lacking. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
All I see in this is human arrogance. We aren't the masters of the universe - we're one pathetic pinprick in an absolutely massive place of existence. Existence isn't dictated by what we can see. Just because we aren't intelligent enough to prove some things outside of our perceptions doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This kind of arrogance is why I hate some types of philosophy. But how do you know? Your only evidence comes from your senses. Just because you see something doesn't mean that it's there, and vice versa. Essentially, it's one of these things that you can never really be sure about. How did time start? No one knows. Is the world you see 'real'? No one knows. There's no way to be sure. Even if God himself appears before you, levitating on a cloud of pure power showing you the majesty of the skies you couldn't be sure. Who's to say that it isn't a dream? You can't be certain of anything, except for ideas (numbers, etc.). You're right in one sense, though, because speculating about it is pretty pointless. It's less arrogance than a lack of perspective. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On July 23 2010 11:50 Scorcher2k wrote: I don't understand how what I said would indicate that "I've read some good quotes of Nietzsche" Iif you really look into Nietzsche it isn't depressing at all. It is extremely joyous. Also, talking about really understanding the total scope of anything off of "reading some good quotes" is pretty preposterous, even with Nietzsche who loved aphorisms. | ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
On July 23 2010 12:58 koreasilver wrote: "I've read some good quotes of Nietzsche" Iif you really look into Nietzsche it isn't depressing at all. It is extremely joyous. Also, talking about really understanding the total scope of anything off of "reading some good quotes" is pretty preposterous, even with Nietzsche who loved aphorisms. Yes, meaning that besides just reading his philosophy that I've also seen some good quotes... Many MANY people find Nietzsche to be extremely depressing (the majority of people I have talked to and read from). Twisting my words to try to make it sound as if I somehow equate quotes to an entirety or fundamentality of something is kind of rediculous. It should be very obvious that I did not mean that "reading some good quotes" is the same as understanding Nietzsche so I'm left again just thinking that you are attempting to be as condescending as possible. | ||
|
zhul4nder
United States189 Posts
On July 23 2010 12:00 Jibba wrote: This looks like a very standard Intro to Modern Philosophy paper and, to be honest, it's not a great one. :/ Before I go on, can I ask what grade you got on it? D: what makes it a bad one? D: I dunno what I will get on it because it's the last paper. | ||
|
IronMonocle
Canada142 Posts
Can a being who exists solely in a second dimensional world even begin to grasp the concept of a third? Is nothing something? Who is to say what is and what is not? As such, debating existentialism accomplishes little. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 23 2010 15:52 zhul4nder wrote: what makes it a bad one? D: I dunno what I will get on it because it's the last paper. I guess I have to ask what the prompt was first. I think the interpretations of rationalism vs. empiricism are short and not fully explained. Maybe I just have issue with some of the writing too. You made some of the points you needed to make, I just thought the stuff around them comes off as assumptions or blanket statements. Like, on the practical level I have to agree with you about requiring both, but without really explaining why, you're actually not giving credit to Descartes' foundationalism. I think you believe your statements are true based on your own empiricism, and you're writing about it as if they're unquestionably true, while at the same time trying to support rationalism. To put it briefly, you're inferring that inferences and deductions are both necessary (for what?). | ||
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17733 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
