|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
