• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:38
CEST 18:38
KST 01:38
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20258Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced24BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 788 users

Philosophy of Knowledge - Page 3

Blogs > Oreo7
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 Next All
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
June 27 2011 09:45 GMT
#41
On June 27 2011 17:40 deathly rat wrote:
A lot of people quoting sources rather than discussing the contents of what they have read.

My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.

A religeous point of view however is that everyone is under the servitude of god, and there is nothing special about life other than that it is the prelude and chance to prove yourself for the eternal afterlife.

I know which one I find more uplifting.


You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right?
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 09:47:35
June 27 2011 09:45 GMT
#42
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?
On June 27 2011 18:45 ceaRshaf wrote:
You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right?

Free will to do exactly what god tells you, otherwise you don't get into heaven, right?

No logo (logo)
Sarmis
Profile Joined July 2010
United States58 Posts
June 27 2011 09:46 GMT
#43
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


You are like a chemistry student, complaining that his professor keeps on ranting about the periodic table and balancing equations, when all you want to do is play with the cool little chemicals and mix some stuff up. Sure, you can teach someone a few cool things they can do with chemicals without any theoretical knowledge, but what would the point be?

"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden."
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 09:52:45
June 27 2011 09:48 GMT
#44
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.

Free will to do exactly what god tells you, otherwise you don't get into heaven, right?


I don't understand, do you feel pressured in your decision making in the every day life? Do you hear Gods voice in you ear telling you what to type.

Monks in a monastery are there because they chose to be there. Drug addicts are pumping heroine in the street because they wanted that. The final outcome? Have no idea.
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
June 27 2011 09:49 GMT
#45
On June 27 2011 18:46 Sarmis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


You are like a chemistry student, complaining that his professor keeps on ranting about the periodic table and balancing equations, when all you want to do is play with the cool little chemicals and mix some stuff up. Sure, you can teach someone a few cool things they can do with chemicals without any theoretical knowledge, but what would the point be?



All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy.
No logo (logo)
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
June 27 2011 09:52 GMT
#46
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you belive it if you don't think it is true?
No logo (logo)
Sarmis
Profile Joined July 2010
United States58 Posts
June 27 2011 09:54 GMT
#47
On June 27 2011 18:49 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:46 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


You are like a chemistry student, complaining that his professor keeps on ranting about the periodic table and balancing equations, when all you want to do is play with the cool little chemicals and mix some stuff up. Sure, you can teach someone a few cool things they can do with chemicals without any theoretical knowledge, but what would the point be?



All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy.


This is how I know that you have never studied philosophy. Your reply has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here, and is a complete irrelevant segue. In philosophy, you learn to actually address the strongest points that your opponent in any debate have, instead of avoiding them or using fallacial arguments.

My point, as any but the most negative reading of it would have found obvious, was that teaching a chemistry student "chemistry" by teaching them what happens when you mix one or two chemicals together is clearly far less useful and constructive than teaching them solid foundations, long since established by real observations. You are attempting to discuss philosophy (in this analogy, chemistry) by talking about stuff, and complaining when we reference the basic texts of philosophy, which would be compared to the periodic tables and equations of chemistry, since clearly I need to spell everything out in baby steps for you.
"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden."
dapanman
Profile Joined September 2010
United States316 Posts
June 27 2011 09:55 GMT
#48
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


The act of directing one to a philosopher is not meant to be enlightening nor interesting, reading said works will do that. If you read the first page (I know you're against reading and all, but just this once) you would see that we've addressed the OP. I would also love for you, Mr. Science Student, to explain physics to me without referencing anything written by Newton, Leibniz or Einstein. Just because your field doesn't cite its writers does not mean your work isn't derivative thereof.
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 09:59:32
June 27 2011 09:55 GMT
#49
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
June 27 2011 09:59 GMT
#50
On June 27 2011 18:54 Sarmis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:49 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:46 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


You are like a chemistry student, complaining that his professor keeps on ranting about the periodic table and balancing equations, when all you want to do is play with the cool little chemicals and mix some stuff up. Sure, you can teach someone a few cool things they can do with chemicals without any theoretical knowledge, but what would the point be?



All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy.


This is how I know that you have never studied philosophy. Your reply has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here, and is a complete irrelevant segue. In philosophy, you learn to actually address the strongest points that your opponent in any debate have, instead of avoiding them or using fallacial arguments.

My point, as any but the most negative reading of it would have found obvious, was that teaching a chemistry student "chemistry" by teaching them what happens when you mix one or two chemicals together is clearly far less useful and constructive than teaching them solid foundations, long since established by real observations. You are attempting to discuss philosophy (in this analogy, chemistry) by talking about stuff, and complaining when we reference the basic texts of philosophy, which would be compared to the periodic tables and equations of chemistry, since clearly I need to spell everything out in baby steps for you.

As someone who has studied chemistry at the highest level I can tell you that understanding basic principles and being able to reproduce results yourself is ABSOLUTELY more important than studying higher level scientific ideas.

Scientific knowledge is a house of cards. If you don't understand the basic principles you cannot understand the bigger ideas. This is exactly the problem I have with your line of reasoning, you are throwing major philosophical ideas around without understanding why they may or may not be true. This is also why you cannot argue these arguments from first principles.
No logo (logo)
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
June 27 2011 10:01 GMT
#51
On June 27 2011 18:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.


So you are agnostic right?
No logo (logo)
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
June 27 2011 10:02 GMT
#52
On June 27 2011 19:01 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.


So you are agnostic right?


Yes, I am.
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
MrCon
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
France29748 Posts
June 27 2011 10:06 GMT
#53
Wasn't Oedipus the one who killed his father to sleep with his mother ? Not sure it has something to do with the truth, but I admit I read that like 15 years ago.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 10:10:38
June 27 2011 10:07 GMT
#54
On June 27 2011 19:02 ceaRshaf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 19:01 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.


So you are agnostic right?


Yes, I am.

Well in that there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist then any truely logical person must by definition be agnostic. The only caveat to this is that there is no good reason to believe something that there is no observable evidence for.
No logo (logo)
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 10:14:04
June 27 2011 10:13 GMT
#55
On June 27 2011 19:07 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 19:02 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 19:01 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.


So you are agnostic right?


Yes, I am.

Well in that there is no way to disprove that something doesn't exist then any truely logical person must by definition be agnostic. The only caveat to this is that there is no good reason to believe something that there is no observable evidence for.



Dude, please understand the difference between believing and knowing. Also, I am not waiting to see God in my room in a white glow to know that He exists. There are other ways, more spiritual.
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
Sarmis
Profile Joined July 2010
United States58 Posts
June 27 2011 10:15 GMT
#56
On June 27 2011 18:59 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 18:54 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:49 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:46 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it.


This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be...


There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination.

I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy?

On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote:
That's because we've read. :|

Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names.

So you've read, but have you thought?


I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding.


I don't find
"you should read kant!"
"you should read Derrida!"
"you should read Descartes!"
particularly enlightening or interesting.

More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.

I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything)


You are like a chemistry student, complaining that his professor keeps on ranting about the periodic table and balancing equations, when all you want to do is play with the cool little chemicals and mix some stuff up. Sure, you can teach someone a few cool things they can do with chemicals without any theoretical knowledge, but what would the point be?



All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy.


This is how I know that you have never studied philosophy. Your reply has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here, and is a complete irrelevant segue. In philosophy, you learn to actually address the strongest points that your opponent in any debate have, instead of avoiding them or using fallacial arguments.

My point, as any but the most negative reading of it would have found obvious, was that teaching a chemistry student "chemistry" by teaching them what happens when you mix one or two chemicals together is clearly far less useful and constructive than teaching them solid foundations, long since established by real observations. You are attempting to discuss philosophy (in this analogy, chemistry) by talking about stuff, and complaining when we reference the basic texts of philosophy, which would be compared to the periodic tables and equations of chemistry, since clearly I need to spell everything out in baby steps for you.

As someone who has studied chemistry at the highest level I can tell you that understanding basic principles and being able to reproduce results yourself is ABSOLUTELY more important than studying higher level scientific ideas.

Scientific knowledge is a house of cards. If you don't understand the basic principles you cannot understand the bigger ideas. This is exactly the problem I have with your line of reasoning, you are throwing major philosophical ideas around without understanding why they may or may not be true. This is also why you cannot argue these arguments from first principles.


This is irrelevant to the conversation, but I'm curious what you consider "studied chemistry at the highest level" to be.

Now, let's break down what you said. Someone get popcorn.

"Scientific knowledge is a house of cards. If you don't understand the basic principles you cannot understand the bigger ideas." Good, you've caught up to Bacon and Descartes. Clearly philosophy needs to start with the foundational building blocks - the first principles. It does us no good to discuss belief until we've established what belief is. There have been, of course, many attempts to start with these first principles. Those that you should be, at the very least, familiar with:
Descartes (Meditations on First Philosophy)
Schopenhauer (World as Will and Idea)
Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, or his Prolegomena for an easier read)

As far as this scientific knowledge you are so fond of, we need to consider how much we can trust the empiricism to which the OP clearly holds dear. Anyone who wants to hold with modern science needs to be familiar with Hume and his critique of induction, which is obviously the first principle of any modern science, including chemistry. In order to trust our sense experience, we first need to dismiss Idealism (Read Berkeley) and Solipsism. It would help, at this point, to be also familiar with Phenomenology (read Husserl and Heidegger), but it isn't really required - we can skip most continental thought without really losing anything from the discussion.

But I digress. Next, you say "This is exactly the problem I have with your line of reasoning, you are throwing major philosophical ideas around without understanding why they may or may not be true."

I would argue that the people who throw around major philosophical ideas without understanding where they come from, and what assumptions they are based on, are the ones who do not know why they may or may not be true. You throw around empiricism and induction (it comes with modern science) - but do you understand why they may or may not be true? How can you accept them until you've actually thought about them? The best way, of course, is to read the works of the major philosophers who have discussed them and thought about them at length, but you don't want us to do this.

And then I get really confused.

"This is also why you cannot argue these arguments from first principles."

But you started with ""Scientific knowledge is a house of cards. If you don't understand the basic principles you cannot understand the bigger ideas." "

So we can't argue these from first principles, but we have to understand them first? So we should argue with things built off of first principles, but not discuss the first principles? Than how, based on what you have said, can people understand the bigger ideas?

Eagerly awaiting your explanation.


"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us cultivate our garden."
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
June 27 2011 10:16 GMT
#57
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:
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.


To answer your post in sequence..
I think the philosophy of knowledge is called epistemology! A philosophical and logical life can be enjoyed because you can be more and more assured of yourself and the world around you. This doesn't mean you have to be stoic, and cold and calculating. I think pascal's wager is a bit of an immoral one because if there was a god all along, they may judge you(since we're entering that realm and leaving deism for a second) to be a bad person since you only believed in god for the goal of being in heaven. I, as many others have, believe you should appeal to reason and say "how could i know You existed? you didn't give me enough evidence!" to loosely quote Christopher Hitchens.


Why do you have to be depressed to view things rationally? It almost seems as if your "rationality" suppresses good feelings and emotions, doesn't it? I'll pull a You should read Hume on human understanding and the principle of the uncertainty of nature. Be it 6am so I'm rough on this but he says something like "we have no reason to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, we just guess/hope that it does, since it has done so every single time before".


* That's good! most people think they know what is true, what is good and what is beautiful, but when you confront them and reason with them they are embarrassed and infuriated at their loss for words. A la Socrates.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
June 27 2011 10:16 GMT
#58
On June 27 2011 19:13 ceaRshaf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2011 19:07 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 19:02 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 19:01 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:52 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:45 deathly rat wrote:
On June 27 2011 18:40 ceaRshaf wrote:
I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing.

Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general.


What do you mean they are empty inside?

Also, do you find my arguments empty and dpressing?

Also, aren't you the one pretending to know the truth? Or are you saying that you are agnostic?


I don't know if you are depressed and it's not the point.

I don't pretend to know the truth lol. I pretend that I do believe in something.


I didn't say am I empty, I said do you find my arguments (ideas) empty?

Isn't believing in something the same as knowing the truth? Otherwise how can you believe it if you don't think it is true?


"I believe I still have 5 bucks in my wallet."
opens the wallet
"Oh, wait. There are only 3 bucks in my wallet."

So I guess, I might be wrong in my believing.....

EDIT: Also, believing is one step of three in getting to know something. Check wikipedia for more.


So you are agnostic right?


Yes, I am.

Well in that there is no way to disprove that something doesn't exist then any truely logical person must by definition be agnostic. The only caveat to this is that there is no good reason to believe something that there is no observable evidence for.



Dude, please understand the difference between believing and knowing. Also, I am not waiting to see God in my room in a white glow to know that He exists. There are other ways, more spiritual.

I don't want to argue the existance of god with you since the internet is full of that stuff. I'm trying to argue that a logical scientific view on life is not a depressing one.
No logo (logo)
ceaRshaf
Profile Joined August 2009
Romania4926 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-27 10:26:18
June 27 2011 10:22 GMT
#59
I'm trying to argue that a logical scientific view on life is not a depressing one.


So you are not sad because there is no big goal for you being here on Earth?

Some people say that it matters what you leave after you die, to remain in the hearts of the living. What if all an asteroid collides with Earth in 100 years and there is nothing else after you, just a big nothing like it was before. What then? Still happy?

This thoughts CAN make people sad and depressed. It's not a MUST, but it can happen.

Mess with the best, die like the rest.
Keldrath
Profile Joined July 2010
United States449 Posts
June 27 2011 10:32 GMT
#60
i think the real question you should be asking yourself is why those conclusions are sad and make you depressed. think real hard on that one for a while.
If you want peace... prepare for war.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
14:00
Bracket Day 2 - Final
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Reynor vs LamboLIVE!
Clem vs TBD
RotterdaM2502
ComeBackTV 2103
IndyStarCraft 607
WardiTV433
CranKy Ducklings217
Rex148
3DClanTV 114
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 2502
IndyStarCraft 607
Rex 148
BRAT_OK 81
MindelVK 29
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 37921
EffOrt 1034
Barracks 1030
Larva 887
Nal_rA 638
BeSt 514
Shine 482
firebathero 334
Stork 305
Soulkey 166
[ Show more ]
Dewaltoss 137
Hyun 96
Movie 54
sorry 47
sSak 31
zelot 30
Free 26
yabsab 22
Terrorterran 17
IntoTheRainbow 6
Dota 2
Gorgc6947
qojqva3895
420jenkins446
Counter-Strike
fl0m3214
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor599
Liquid`Hasu340
Other Games
Beastyqt1492
Hui .322
Fuzer 185
KnowMe117
QueenE107
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 40
• StrangeGG 27
• Legendk 6
• iHatsuTV 1
• Kozan
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki19
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV751
League of Legends
• Jankos1639
Counter-Strike
• Nemesis1664
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1h 22m
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Wardi Open
18h 22m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 17h
WardiTV European League
1d 23h
Online Event
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.