| Blogs > Oreo7 |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:22 ceaRshaf wrote: So you are not sad because there is no big goal for you being here on Earth? Why would a logical scientific view on life mean that there is no big goal? Lots of people have big goals and big dreams, and don't need to believe in god | ||
|
DNA61289
United States665 Posts
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. not exactly, he was destined to marry his mother and kill his father by an oracle so his parents left him out to die. However someone else found him and raised him, then one day he got into a fight with a man and killed him, and ended up marrying his wife, who turned out to be his mother....I know tragic.  | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Do you mean an emotionally significant one? How's this: no matter what you're thinking, and how meaningless you think life is, there is someone out there who is thinking "what's wrong with the sad and depressed people who don't see the beauty and joy of this butterflies and kittens world?" And no matter what you think about them or say about them, they're going to enjoy themselves. That could be you, but you'd have to want it more than being cool and angsty. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:33 Roe wrote: Why would a logical scientific view on life mean that there is no big goal? Lots of people have big goals and big dreams, and don't need to believe in god We are talking about ultimate goals, not becoming a cheerleader in life. Ar a firemen. Also, I am not depressed about these thoughts, I just said that they can be. 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. It's obvious why they are sad. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:15 Sarmis wrote: 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. Yes! This is exactly the sort of posting and arguing I was complaining wasn't going on. It also made me laugh quite a bit. Even if I am proved entirely wrong, I don't care as long as the thread continues in this vain. 1) I don't care to tell you why I am expert, because to do so is to inspire blind faith rather than individual reasoning. I studied at the University of Manchester, The Mayo Clinic and KCL, but it is enitirely irrelivant, please ignore this. 2) Holy shit, I'm as good as Descartes and Bacon already? I'm so happy I did this on my own. I think it's worth pointing out that I really don't know who discovered what in chemistry, and you'll find the same is true of all but the most enthusiaistic scientific historians. It's just not important. Understanding the ideas and why they are true, and being able to deduce them yourself is the important part. I don't care who wrote what, I just want a discussion on the ideas contained within as related to the idea in the OP (as you have thankfully attempted in your previous post). It's also woth noting that it's not required for you to be an expert on your opponent's philosophy in order for you to refute it's ideas. I remember listening to I think Dawkins relating how christians would complain that he wasn't an expert in the contents of the bible, so couldn't possibly engage in a discussion re:the existance of a god. I mean I've read out of curiousity some different philosophical views on life, but I don't need to be an expert on other house cards built upon clearly false principles. 3) As far as this scientific knowledge you are so fond of - this is what made me laugh. What's your problem with scientific knowledge? I think all teens even come to think about whether we can trust our own senses. I think it has been described as a philosophical dead end. Anyway, once you decide that the world does exist outside your own mind, this is when you can start making observations and engaging in some real science. 4) please tell me the arguments against empirical evidence. I accept ignorance, but look forward to having a laugh reading about other ideas. 5) my argument is that you MUST argue from first principles. At least to start with, and then constantly refer back to them to make sure you haven't disappeared completely up your own arse. it should read This is also why you cannot argue these arguments from first principles | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:39 ceaRshaf wrote: We are talking about ultimate goals, not becoming a cheerleader in life. Ar a firemen. Also, I am not depressed about these thoughts, I just said that they can be. That's a good enough goal, no? What is ultimate, if not your entire life? | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
Since if I become a cheerleader I can't say for sure that I have fulfilled my goals in life, but the opposite is true as well, if I fail at becoming a cheerleader my life is not over. So any goals we target for ourselves are arbitrary, and can't be compared one to each other because it's pointless. Can you tell a pro-gamer that his life is a waste and he should go become a philosopher? No, because there is no way to know how to live ones life. But I do want to believe that there is ONE correct answer. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote: 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. I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. Philosophers like Bachelard considered that everything that was essentially needed to be said, has already been said. Using past authors is a shortcut, just like proving a well-accepted law is a waste of time unless you have the goal of verifying it. It's quite simple actually. Taking the example of psychanalysis - not saying that I agree with psychanalysis as a whole - one could agree with Freud, Jung or Adler, who had all three different "systems", a different analytic structure to explain and observe the object of study. Instead of explaining a system all over again, one could simply... refer to Jung's Anima. If the person you're speaking with is aware with the concept, it simply saves time and provides a common ground for reflexion. The undersanding of such concepts does however vary, indeed, but this is why quoting is only used in the context of theoretical university studies, where students and teachers are supposed to share a common ground of knowledge. Should one quote past authors outside of this context, it is most likely a way to try to assert one's authority over a subject, by demonstrating one's superior wit. But maybe you could forget about Schrödinger's work and explain it to me all over again? Otherwise, I would suspect that you have no deep undersanding of it whatsoever... Or maybe I could hand you the Baldor textbook and ask you to solve it without using any preexisting theorems and laws? The idea that logic only belongs to scientific studies makes me quite sad. As if abstract and logical thinking were two distinct forms of existence. As if philosophy had done nothing for the world and was just the random rambling of a few old men. As if litterature is now a fancy antiquity. No wonder modern day engineers are as stupid as fuck and don't understand a single thing outside of their domain of studies. No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was. /end rant. | ||
|
Mactator
109 Posts
On June 27 2011 18:49 deathly rat wrote: All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy. So philosophy=mathematics?=string theory. These general statements are so stupid Also, modern philosophers have no answer to what the meaning of life is. So you are saying "that basically we want to know the truth until it turns out the truth is shit". How do you know if the truth is shit before knowing it? You don't so we search and hope for the best. What about " Is it best to view the world rationally and be depressed? Or take a leap of faith and be happy?". How do you know that rational thinking and depression are two of the same kind? You don't. Are you happy as an ignorant? Not necessarily. So you see, you are asking the wrong questions. You haven't yet grasped the essence of it. By studying philosophy you become better at that. Better at recognising the assumptions behind your questions as well as your answers. If you don't go all-in philosophy then this might help you in many ways so you aren't wasting your time which pretty much is what you are asking about. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
All science must be based on real observations, otherwise it is philosophy. So philosophy=mathematics?=string theory. These general statements are so stupid. Well, he didn't say that . | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:*to me, after reading philosophy, I'm left with more questions than answers. That's the point! | ||
|
Keldrath
United States449 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:39 ceaRshaf wrote: We are talking about ultimate goals, not becoming a cheerleader in life. Ar a firemen. Also, I am not depressed about these thoughts, I just said that they can be. It's obvious why they are sad. its never as obvious as it seems. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
On June 27 2011 16:39 drewcifer wrote: I know exactly what you mean, my suggestion is to play video games/other fun shit to take your mind off it. Yea there are nights when I think about it and just like get a near panic attack, then I laugh it off. But in the end it doesn't really matter. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. Philosophers like Bachelard considered that everything that was essentially needed to be said, has already been said. Using past authors is a shortcut, just like proving a well-accepted law is a waste of time unless you have the goal of verifying it. It's quite simple actually. Taking the example of psychanalysis - not saying that I agree with psychanalysis as a whole - one could agree with Freud, Jung or Adler, who had all three different "systems", a different analytic structure to explain and observe the object of study. Instead of explaining a system all over again, one could simply... refer to Jung's Anima. If the person you're speaking with is aware with the concept, it simply saves time and provides a common ground for reflexion. The undersanding of such concepts does however vary, indeed, but this is why quoting is only used in the context of theoretical university studies, where students and teachers are supposed to share a common ground of knowledge. Should one quote past authors outside of this context, it is most likely a way to try to assert one's authority over a subject, by demonstrating one's superior wit. But maybe you could forget about Schrödinger's work and explain it to me all over again? Otherwise, I would suspect that you have no deep undersanding of it whatsoever... Or maybe I could hand you the Baldor textbook and ask you to solve it without using any preexisting theorems and laws? The idea that logic only belongs to scientific studies makes me quite sad. As if abstract and logical thinking were two distinct forms of existence. As if philosophy had done nothing for the world and was just the random rambling of a few old men. As if litterature is now a fancy antiquity. No wonder modern day engineers are as stupid as fuck and don't understand a single thing outside of their domain of studies. No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was. /end rant. I'd just like to say that by using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust is horridly misleading in that last sentence. If a 15 year old kid is unfamiliar with the Holocaust, that is sad. If they are unfamiliar with "the Shoah", that is a completely different story. However, in defense of your point, when it comes to chemistry, or physics, or math, they follow a simple set of axioms. They assume these axioms to be true, and everything else follows directly from that. Philosophy, however, is engaged in attempting to figure out what those axioms are. Therefore those who study philosophy have to be familiar with a far larger set of beliefs, and we lack any objective way to test any of these beliefs. It's as if science hadn't disproved the Ptolemaic system - when discussing astronomy, you would have to establish first whether or not you were using the Ptolemaic system or the Copernican. When doing so, you wouldn't start every conversation with an explanation of the Ptolemaic system or the Copernican system - you would simply reference them. Anyone who wants to know astronomy would have to study them both. In philosophy, we have a lot more then two systems, so it is easiest to reference them by the seminal works. So when someone says "I'm suffering from existentialism", we don't have to recreate existentialism every time from scratch, nor can we say "this is the objective answer". Instead, we direct them to the seminal works on Existentialism, and when they have read those, if they still want to discuss it, we can discuss it. Until they've caught up with the basics, however, why should we engage in some debate that simply rehashes early dead ends? | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
(On a side note, I just realized that people from Palestine use the same word for what happened in their own country: Nakba, "catastrophy". How ironic!). | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
On June 27 2011 20:14 Kukaracha wrote: My bad, here in France the term Shoah is widely used. I'm also a Cinema student so I always think about Lanzmann's documentary. (On a side note, I just realized that people from Palestine use the same word for what happened in their own country: Nakba, "catastrophy". How ironic!). I was only familiar with it from the documentary, and I've certainly never spent the 10 or so hours to watch it. In the states, at least, the term Shoah is never used. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was. Ugh, nationalism? gross... | ||
|
Mactator
109 Posts
Read it through. Guess he means philosophy = speculation = anything that is not based on evidence which is pretty misleading in this context. Science, btw., is not that simple. Again, string theory (which may be true/false after 30 years of intensive research.., probably wrong imo). | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote: ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. Ugh, nationalism? gross... An axiom is something that is self evidently true, which you do not need to prove true. A theorem, on the other hand, is something that is proved from axioms. A simple example are Euclids postulates - the first five are Axioms, the remaining ones are theorems. A lemma is logically similar to a theorem, but normally considered of lesser importance, typically only used to prove a theorem. Law, however, is not a term in logic. | ||
| ||
|
|
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Cure
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Online Event
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
LiuLi Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
