|
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the philosophy of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion like so many conclusions in philosophy are*, but is just another question.
Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally** and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
Furthermore, I think that this conclusion is sad. Now, all that said, this got me thinking: So why did I want to view the world rationally?
Pascal's Wager is basically the argument that you have nothing to lose by sacrificing knowledge for the bliss of ignorance. More and more I think this might be true, but at the same time I don't think I can unlearn what I've discovered, which is what I think the tragedy of "Oedipus" was. That basically we want to know the truth until it turns out the truth is shit.
So what do you guys think? Is it best to view the world rationally and be depressed? Or take a leap of faith and be happy? I'm stuck.
*to me, after reading philosophy, I'm left with more questions than answers.
**I'll define rationally as basically believing in only what we can observe with our senses.
  
|
Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally.
Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension
Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology.
Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself.
|
On June 27 2011 16:11 Torte de Lini wrote:Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally. Show nested quote +Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning. God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology. Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself.
By viewing everything perfectly rationally, I meant through the lens of the scientific process, and through that lens, god does not exist.
Our works aren't immortal because the human race and all existence isn't immortal.
What meaning can their be when everything's temporary?
Anyway, I don't want to debate those three, but the significance of knowledge v faith.
|
17033 Posts
I don't see how your conclusion (that viewing the world rationally leads to depression) follows from your premises (nonexistence of God, mortality of man, existential nihilism).
EDIT: Going to say right now that if this turns into a religious debate, I'm closing the thread.
|
Pascal's wager has already been rejected to oblivion.
|
I don't mean to be mean but I have so many problems with your post. First, I'm not sure how much philosophy you have read but I would bet every work you read had a conclusion that was not a question, or it wasn't really philosophy. Second, your 'perfectly rational conclusions' are neither perfect or rational without an argument supporting them. It will almost never be rational to say, 'God does not exist' without some sort of breakthrough in science or philosophy; I cannot even fathom what such a breakthrough would involve. 'Man is mortal' is either, taken biologically, a tautology, or it falls to the same problem as your God 'conclusion.' On the meaning of life, your 'conclusion' simply flies in the face of 2500 years of people much smarter than you or I applying their 'perfect rationality.'
Pascal's wager is not a theory; it is the argument that it is always rational to believe in a god. It has very little to do with knowledge and nothing to do with bliss. And the tragedy of Oedipus was pretty much the opposite of what you said, his flaw was his blindness to the truth, not that he knew too much.
Nothing you wrote was epistemology, I'm sorry. It was a stream of pretentious consciousness.
Edit: Torte don't worry, most philosophers don't consider Derrida philosophy anyway.
|
if curiousity killed the cat i would much like to know what the cat knew before it died.
only thing i can contribute without arguing over religion which emp just said not to do T.T
|
I do kind of agree with some of your conclusions in some sense. I try to look at things in what I feel is a rational manner, and generally prescribe to your conclusions A/C (haven't really thought too much about B). It is kind of hard for me to actually say what is meaning in itself, and I do feel a sort of "emptiness" or "sadness" if I come to accept a lack of meaning in anything. But I also believe I feel a "happiness", so to speak, with many of the things in life, and I'll choose to focus on these things when living life. So in other words, maybe there is no reason for me or anyone to do anything, but I look to do what I do for the lols.
|
On June 27 2011 16:15 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:11 Torte de Lini wrote:Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally. Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning. God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology. Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself. By viewing everything perfectly rationally, I meant through the lens of the scientific process, and through that lens, god does not exist. Our works aren't immortal because the human race and all existence isn't immortal. What meaning can their be when everything's temporary? Anyway, I don't want to debate those three, but the significance of knowledge v faith.
You're asking for rationality in a system of beliefs and transference of emotional and/or moral values.
Narrow dimension not fitting quite well.
One's work will be remembered by its people if it had a significant impact. It's own mortality will only cease when the very beings cease to exist, from then on, it doesn't matter about its significance or overall mortality because neither would really have an effect on other generations of other beings (thus it is irrelevant anyways). What meaning do you search for something temporary? If one's immortality is what you seek, consider the idea that your own mortality is immortally symbolized since the dawn of time.
|
I know exactly what you mean, my suggestion is to play video games/other fun shit to take your mind off it.
|
On June 27 2011 16:15 Empyrean wrote:
I don't see how your conclusion (that viewing the world rationally leads to depression) follows from your premises (nonexistence of God, mortality of man, existential nihilism).
EDIT: Going to say right now that if this turns into a religious debate, I'm closing the thread.
I don't want it to 
@others
Should have said god is unprovable from a rational stance. But again I don't really care to discuss those three pts here but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. It can be taken out of a religious context if it pleases you.
|
You can still believe all that stuff and strive to greatness/happiness. The exact moment I realized that everything is deterministic and that I really don't have any free will, I decided that I'd rather my fate be to go out and live my life in the best possible way than to sit around and mope about not being in control of my own future.
Humans desire knowledge because we like it. Sure there may be some people who can't handle the truth, but in the end I'd still rather know everything and deal with it than go about blissfully ignorant.
|
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley.
|
On June 27 2011 16:26 dapanman wrote:
I don't mean to be mean but I have so many problems with your post. First, I'm not sure how much philosophy you have read but I would bet every work you read had a conclusion that was not a question, or it wasn't really philosophy. Second, your 'perfectly rational conclusions' are neither perfect or rational without an argument supporting them. It will almost never be rational to say, 'God does not exist' without some sort of breakthrough in science or philosophy; I cannot even fathom what such a breakthrough would involve. 'Man is mortal' is either, taken biologically, a tautology, or it falls to the same problem as your God 'conclusion.' On the meaning of life, your 'conclusion' simply flies in the face of 2500 years of people much smarter than you or I applying their 'perfect rationality.'
Pascal's wager is not a theory; it is the argument that it is always rational to believe in a god. It has very little to do with knowledge and nothing to do with bliss. And the tragedy of Oedipus was pretty much the opposite of what you said, his flaw was his blindness to the truth, not that he knew too much.
Nothing you wrote was epistemology, I'm sorry. It was a stream of pretentious consciousness.
Edit: Torte don't worry, most philosophers don't consider Derrida philosophy anyway.
^ This, pretty much, it's a fallacy to define "rational" as "scientific process" especially because what you're doing isn't the scientific process nor is the scientific process sufficient/in any way related to the concepts in proving either the first or third of your "perfect" premises.
|
have you read Critique of Pure Reasoning by Immanuel Kant?
|
On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things.
Well you should have just said that in your OP*. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for.
On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley.
I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread.
*Edit: In fact, I'll play editor for you, no charge.
THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the value of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion.
Basically, I think that if you think about the world a bit you might reach the conclusions I have: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think that these conclusions are sad. So why did I want to think about these things in the first place? What do you guys think? Is it best to contemplate the world and be depressed? Or remain ignorant and be happy? I'm stuck.
|
On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread.
Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even.
It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]".
It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in.
Sorry~
|
On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP*. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. *Edit: In fact, I'll play editor for you, no charge. Show nested quote +THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the value of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion.
Basically, I think that if you think about the world a bit you might reach the conclusions I have: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think that these conclusions are sad. So why did I want to think about these things in the first place? What do you guys think? Is it best to contemplate the world and be depressed? Or remain ignorant and be happy? I'm stuck.
Why can't ignorance be philosophy? That's such a bold statement to make. Philosophers can come to the conclusion that ignorance is better, even if that itself is not an ignorant conclusion.
|
On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]". It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in. Sorry~
Ah, that makes much more sense, though suddenly I find myself no longer agreeing with you. :3
Though I'm not really being fair, I don't hate Derrida that much, and Foucault much less. I assume Continentals have much more pull in Canada than in the States. At least west coast we are super polarized, north-south. I may be a bit biased having sat through some of Searle's hour-long rants about Derrida.
|
On June 27 2011 17:02 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]". It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in. Sorry~ Ah, that makes much more sense, though suddenly I find myself no longer agreeing with you. :3 Though I'm not really being fair, I don't hate Derrida that much, and Foucault much less. I assume Continentals have much more pull in Canada than in the States. At least west coast we are super polarized, north-south. I may be a bit biased having sat through some of Searle's hour-long rants about Derrida.
I prefer you disagree than agree with me :3!
I originally hated Foucalt, thinking it was just religious shit about confession, but the reality of it all is that it's not really religious related, but rather a form of identifying oneself via confession and truth, leading to further knowledge about yourself and your own life.
But I'm poorly paraphrasing. Derrida, for me, is throwing too much that I know and completely approaching every single basic aspect of society's mainstream views in a whole new way I can't conceive yet.
Too much man, just too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
