|
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the philosophy of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion like so many conclusions in philosophy are*, but is just another question.
Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally** and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
Furthermore, I think that this conclusion is sad. Now, all that said, this got me thinking: So why did I want to view the world rationally?
Pascal's Wager is basically the argument that you have nothing to lose by sacrificing knowledge for the bliss of ignorance. More and more I think this might be true, but at the same time I don't think I can unlearn what I've discovered, which is what I think the tragedy of "Oedipus" was. That basically we want to know the truth until it turns out the truth is shit.
So what do you guys think? Is it best to view the world rationally and be depressed? Or take a leap of faith and be happy? I'm stuck.
*to me, after reading philosophy, I'm left with more questions than answers.
**I'll define rationally as basically believing in only what we can observe with our senses.
  
|
Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally.
Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension
Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology.
Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself.
|
On June 27 2011 16:11 Torte de Lini wrote:Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally. Show nested quote +Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning. God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology. Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself.
By viewing everything perfectly rationally, I meant through the lens of the scientific process, and through that lens, god does not exist.
Our works aren't immortal because the human race and all existence isn't immortal.
What meaning can their be when everything's temporary?
Anyway, I don't want to debate those three, but the significance of knowledge v faith.
|
16953 Posts
I don't see how your conclusion (that viewing the world rationally leads to depression) follows from your premises (nonexistence of God, mortality of man, existential nihilism).
EDIT: Going to say right now that if this turns into a religious debate, I'm closing the thread.
|
Pascal's wager has already been rejected to oblivion.
|
I don't mean to be mean but I have so many problems with your post. First, I'm not sure how much philosophy you have read but I would bet every work you read had a conclusion that was not a question, or it wasn't really philosophy. Second, your 'perfectly rational conclusions' are neither perfect or rational without an argument supporting them. It will almost never be rational to say, 'God does not exist' without some sort of breakthrough in science or philosophy; I cannot even fathom what such a breakthrough would involve. 'Man is mortal' is either, taken biologically, a tautology, or it falls to the same problem as your God 'conclusion.' On the meaning of life, your 'conclusion' simply flies in the face of 2500 years of people much smarter than you or I applying their 'perfect rationality.'
Pascal's wager is not a theory; it is the argument that it is always rational to believe in a god. It has very little to do with knowledge and nothing to do with bliss. And the tragedy of Oedipus was pretty much the opposite of what you said, his flaw was his blindness to the truth, not that he knew too much.
Nothing you wrote was epistemology, I'm sorry. It was a stream of pretentious consciousness.
Edit: Torte don't worry, most philosophers don't consider Derrida philosophy anyway.
|
if curiousity killed the cat i would much like to know what the cat knew before it died.
only thing i can contribute without arguing over religion which emp just said not to do T.T
|
I do kind of agree with some of your conclusions in some sense. I try to look at things in what I feel is a rational manner, and generally prescribe to your conclusions A/C (haven't really thought too much about B). It is kind of hard for me to actually say what is meaning in itself, and I do feel a sort of "emptiness" or "sadness" if I come to accept a lack of meaning in anything. But I also believe I feel a "happiness", so to speak, with many of the things in life, and I'll choose to focus on these things when living life. So in other words, maybe there is no reason for me or anyone to do anything, but I look to do what I do for the lols.
|
On June 27 2011 16:15 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:11 Torte de Lini wrote:Everytime I think of knowledge and everything "we know". I think of Derrida and then kill myself eternally. Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning. God exists, you're just viewing it in a very narrow dimension Man is mortal, but their work lives forever and is immortal in evolution and technology. Life has a personal meaning. People are just focused on direction than the path itself. By viewing everything perfectly rationally, I meant through the lens of the scientific process, and through that lens, god does not exist. Our works aren't immortal because the human race and all existence isn't immortal. What meaning can their be when everything's temporary? Anyway, I don't want to debate those three, but the significance of knowledge v faith.
You're asking for rationality in a system of beliefs and transference of emotional and/or moral values.
Narrow dimension not fitting quite well.
One's work will be remembered by its people if it had a significant impact. It's own mortality will only cease when the very beings cease to exist, from then on, it doesn't matter about its significance or overall mortality because neither would really have an effect on other generations of other beings (thus it is irrelevant anyways). What meaning do you search for something temporary? If one's immortality is what you seek, consider the idea that your own mortality is immortally symbolized since the dawn of time.
|
I know exactly what you mean, my suggestion is to play video games/other fun shit to take your mind off it.
|
On June 27 2011 16:15 Empyrean wrote:
I don't see how your conclusion (that viewing the world rationally leads to depression) follows from your premises (nonexistence of God, mortality of man, existential nihilism).
EDIT: Going to say right now that if this turns into a religious debate, I'm closing the thread.
I don't want it to 
@others
Should have said god is unprovable from a rational stance. But again I don't really care to discuss those three pts here but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. It can be taken out of a religious context if it pleases you.
|
You can still believe all that stuff and strive to greatness/happiness. The exact moment I realized that everything is deterministic and that I really don't have any free will, I decided that I'd rather my fate be to go out and live my life in the best possible way than to sit around and mope about not being in control of my own future.
Humans desire knowledge because we like it. Sure there may be some people who can't handle the truth, but in the end I'd still rather know everything and deal with it than go about blissfully ignorant.
|
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley.
|
On June 27 2011 16:26 dapanman wrote:
I don't mean to be mean but I have so many problems with your post. First, I'm not sure how much philosophy you have read but I would bet every work you read had a conclusion that was not a question, or it wasn't really philosophy. Second, your 'perfectly rational conclusions' are neither perfect or rational without an argument supporting them. It will almost never be rational to say, 'God does not exist' without some sort of breakthrough in science or philosophy; I cannot even fathom what such a breakthrough would involve. 'Man is mortal' is either, taken biologically, a tautology, or it falls to the same problem as your God 'conclusion.' On the meaning of life, your 'conclusion' simply flies in the face of 2500 years of people much smarter than you or I applying their 'perfect rationality.'
Pascal's wager is not a theory; it is the argument that it is always rational to believe in a god. It has very little to do with knowledge and nothing to do with bliss. And the tragedy of Oedipus was pretty much the opposite of what you said, his flaw was his blindness to the truth, not that he knew too much.
Nothing you wrote was epistemology, I'm sorry. It was a stream of pretentious consciousness.
Edit: Torte don't worry, most philosophers don't consider Derrida philosophy anyway.
^ This, pretty much, it's a fallacy to define "rational" as "scientific process" especially because what you're doing isn't the scientific process nor is the scientific process sufficient/in any way related to the concepts in proving either the first or third of your "perfect" premises.
|
have you read Critique of Pure Reasoning by Immanuel Kant?
|
On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things.
Well you should have just said that in your OP*. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for.
On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley.
I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread.
*Edit: In fact, I'll play editor for you, no charge.
THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the value of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion.
Basically, I think that if you think about the world a bit you might reach the conclusions I have: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think that these conclusions are sad. So why did I want to think about these things in the first place? What do you guys think? Is it best to contemplate the world and be depressed? Or remain ignorant and be happy? I'm stuck.
|
On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread.
Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even.
It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]".
It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in.
Sorry~
|
On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP*. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. *Edit: In fact, I'll play editor for you, no charge. Show nested quote +THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE
So I was wondering what you guys thought about the value of knowledge.
I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion.
Basically, I think that if you think about the world a bit you might reach the conclusions I have: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think that these conclusions are sad. So why did I want to think about these things in the first place? What do you guys think? Is it best to contemplate the world and be depressed? Or remain ignorant and be happy? I'm stuck.
Why can't ignorance be philosophy? That's such a bold statement to make. Philosophers can come to the conclusion that ignorance is better, even if that itself is not an ignorant conclusion.
|
On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]". It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in. Sorry~
Ah, that makes much more sense, though suddenly I find myself no longer agreeing with you. :3
Though I'm not really being fair, I don't hate Derrida that much, and Foucault much less. I assume Continentals have much more pull in Canada than in the States. At least west coast we are super polarized, north-south. I may be a bit biased having sat through some of Searle's hour-long rants about Derrida.
|
On June 27 2011 17:02 dapanman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]". It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in. Sorry~ Ah, that makes much more sense, though suddenly I find myself no longer agreeing with you. :3 Though I'm not really being fair, I don't hate Derrida that much, and Foucault much less. I assume Continentals have much more pull in Canada than in the States. At least west coast we are super polarized, north-south. I may be a bit biased having sat through some of Searle's hour-long rants about Derrida.
I prefer you disagree than agree with me :3!
I originally hated Foucalt, thinking it was just religious shit about confession, but the reality of it all is that it's not really religious related, but rather a form of identifying oneself via confession and truth, leading to further knowledge about yourself and your own life.
But I'm poorly paraphrasing. Derrida, for me, is throwing too much that I know and completely approaching every single basic aspect of society's mainstream views in a whole new way I can't conceive yet.
Too much man, just too much.
|
It's a known fact that the more knowledge about existence you get the harder the truth begins to be.
Also:
A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
We know for sure only B.
A and C can't be proven right nor wrong.
|
On June 27 2011 17:06 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 17:02 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:On June 27 2011 16:47 dapanman wrote:On June 27 2011 16:39 Oreo7 wrote:
but rather the idea that perhaps the truth shouldn't always be sought out and whether theirs any inherent meaning within the truth or whether ignorance is just as good in the grand scheme of things. Well you should have just said that in your OP. I would have just asked you to remove the word 'philosophy' from it. Ignorance is not a philosophy, it is the mortal enemy of philosophy; if you're questioning the value of truth, philosophy is not what you are looking for. On June 27 2011 16:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think you should read Foucalt about Truth :3 Seems right up your alley. I find it hilarious that you spit on Derrida and recommend Foucault in the same thread. Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. It's not a spit or an insult, it's more of a: "I'm intimidated and too mentally weak to accept [all of Derrida's views]". It is nothing new that many people have trouble grasping Derrida's discourse, me included. What I originally meant is that reading his work makes me want to kill myself because there is so much to take in. Sorry~ Ah, that makes much more sense, though suddenly I find myself no longer agreeing with you. :3 Though I'm not really being fair, I don't hate Derrida that much, and Foucault much less. I assume Continentals have much more pull in Canada than in the States. At least west coast we are super polarized, north-south. I may be a bit biased having sat through some of Searle's hour-long rants about Derrida. I prefer you disagree than agree with me :3! I originally hated Foucalt, thinking it was just religious shit about confession, but the reality of it all is that it's not really religious related, but rather a form of identifying oneself via confession and truth, leading to further knowledge about yourself and your own life. But I'm poorly paraphrasing. Derrida, for me, is throwing too much that I know and completely approaching every single basic aspect of society's mainstream views in a whole new way I can't conceive yet. Too much man, just too much.
I'm not sure what bit of Foucault you are referencing but it sounds like History of Sexuality. Am I close? The part in there about confession, I agree, has nothing to do with religion. I'm pretty sure Foucault wasn't religious at all, he may have even been homosexual from what I remember. In HoS Vol. I, his reference to confession was more of a critical one, I think he hates that we can 'identify ourselves.' He seemed to blame confession for the loss of our reverence to truth; we no longer find truth in experiences, artisans and craftsmen cease to exist and we get technicians instead. Truth is replaced by knowledge and we desire to accumulate knowledge rather than experience truth. Basically, truth is artistic and knowledge is scientific; being a Continental he will go for the art every day.
As for Derrida, the best laugh I ever got from Searle was saying "So he's the philosophical equivalent of dancing in a flower field and calling it science?"
|
It's from: Genealogy of the Self
I have the PDF for it if you want. He talks about duties towards self, exomologesis, exagoreusis, Christianity and Confession.
|
I don't think Foucault has written anything by that title.
|
It derives from Technologies of the Self which comes from his book: Genealogy of Ethics. I should have clarified.
Let me see if I can get you the PDF.
edit: or is it Politics of Truth
|
he's never written anything called genealogy of ethics
|
|
|
I recall a section in Vol. III of History of Sexuality regarding confession and the self. You probably read one of the lectures he gave at Cal right before he died (i.e. not published by him).
Edit: I see you found it, reading.
|
On June 27 2011 17:33 dapanman wrote:
I recall a section in Vol. III of History of Sexuality regarding confession and the self. You probably read one of the lectures he gave at Cal right before he died (i.e. not published by him).
Edit: I see you found it, reading.
Nah, this was during my Sociology classes awhile back, so I guess my memory is hazy. I posted the PDF, can you see it?
Edit: oh terrific! Let me know what you think. It's nearly 5 a.m here, so I might be asleep. But I would love to hear what you think!
|
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.
|
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...
|
On June 27 2011 17:35 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 17:33 dapanman wrote:
I recall a section in Vol. III of History of Sexuality regarding confession and the self. You probably read one of the lectures he gave at Cal right before he died (i.e. not published by him).
Edit: I see you found it, reading. Nah, this was during my Sociology classes awhile back, so I guess my memory is hazy. I posted the PDF, can you see it? Edit: oh terrific! Let me know what you think. It's nearly 5 a.m here, so I might be asleep. But I would love to hear what you think!
I actually realized I've read this before, skimmed it again. Even here Foucault references the issue he had with confession, but instead of pinning it all on confession, he elaborates and shows that we've been using confession wrong in the modern age. We lost the ritual self-sacrifice (the art if you will) of confession while keeping the Catholic obligation to 'tell the truth.' We kept the telling the truth part because its fun. We like the hermeneutics, the interpretation of ourselves, we like talking about ourselves and we like hearing about others. Reality television is a perfect example; we like scandal and drama, we like to be intimate and to gossip. All of these things have the exagoreusis, but we remove the self-sacrifice by divorcing these acts from sin. Confession in this way is no longer self-sacrificing because there isn't the exomologesis, the ritual. Confession is removed from its context in religion and has lost all its power of revealing our being (teasing Foucault's Heideggerian influences).
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.
That's because we've read. :|
|
I think you (the op) need to start at your definition of rationality, which you are making such a core tenant of your entire rant. To call rationality "believing in only what we can observe with our senses" is so far off compared to what anyone (in philosophy) would consider rationality. Start off with some basic reading, even something as simple as the wikipedia pages for Empiricism and Rationalism.
Actually, scrap that. Get Russell's History of Western Philosophy, and read that, as a basic primer.
You aren't going to believe in some kind of god unless you really believe, so there is no point in Pascal's wager. You can't talk yourself into a leap of faith, so instead go and read a Kaufman translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. You won't understand what it really means, but you'll enjoy it and think you do. Than read Kaufman's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. After that, you should be able to know what you should read next, based on whatever you are currently interested at the time (which is the reason for reading the survey).
Stay far, far away from Derrida and Foucault until you have a much much bigger background in philosophy. In fact, just stay away from Derrida entirely.
|
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +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?
ps: I can quote you Bertrand Russel and Dawkins for days if that makes you happy.
|
the Dagon Knight4002 Posts
On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote:
Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even.
I'm not going to make any more impact in the thread, I fear, but I'd highly recommend reading some de Saussure and, if you have the time, maybe some Worf. They're both fundamentally fascinating with approaches to language 
|
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
|
Pascal's Wager is a pretty terrible argument. It doesn't follow that you have a true and unyielding faith from Pascal's Wager, you instead have a half hearted belief from fear of retribution. I also disagree that your conclusions follows from your premises. Looking at the world rationally you run into quite a bit of beauty.
|
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +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)
|
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?
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.
|
I don't claim to understand Derrida, but to me he just seems like an intellectual schoolyard bully, wandering around being destructive and snarky and not at all constructive or useful.
I remember reading one of his papers, that was pretty much entirely "blah blah blah but no blah blah blah but no blah blah blah but no you can't understand what I'm saying anyways and it has no meaning"
|
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.
|
On June 27 2011 19:22 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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
|
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.
|
How are you defining a "conclusion"? I mean, I can surely think of more than 3 conclusions: 2+2=4. sqrt(4)=2.
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.
|
On June 27 2011 19:33 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 19:22 ceaRshaf wrote: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? 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.
|
On June 27 2011 19:15 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 18:59 deathly rat wrote: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.
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
|
On June 27 2011 19:39 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 19:33 Roe wrote:On June 27 2011 19:22 ceaRshaf wrote: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? 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.
That's a good enough goal, no? What is ultimate, if not your entire life?
|
I guess a more eternal goal is what I (at least ) am thinking. Every challenge you make for yourself in life you will either pass it or fail it, but the event will for sure pass.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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 .
|
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!
|
On June 27 2011 19:39 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 19:33 Roe wrote:On June 27 2011 19:22 ceaRshaf wrote: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? 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. Show nested quote +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.
its never as obvious as it seems.
|
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.
|
And to the OP, this is why spirituality was born and this is why it keeps on moving human beings. There is even such a thing as "scientific faith", and the belief that science will bring progress to the human species. This is a form of spirituality, too.
|
On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
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!).
|
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.
|
On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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...
|
On June 27 2011 19:57 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +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 .
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).
|
On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: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. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. Show nested quote +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...
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.
|
On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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... 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.
What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding.
|
On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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... 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. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding.
You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then.
|
On June 27 2011 20:48 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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... 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. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding. You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then.
well lets not get onto your description of a theorem then.
|
On June 27 2011 20:53 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:48 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: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. 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... 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. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding. You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then. well lets not get onto your description of a theorem then.
From Wikipedia: In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms. The derivation of a theorem is often interpreted as a proof of the truth of the resulting expression, but different deductive systems can yield other interpretations, depending on the meanings of the derivation rules. Theorems have two components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions. The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.[2]
I will note that the philosophical version of a theorem is the same as a mathematical version (as they are, quite simply, the same thing, from logic)
|
On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +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...
Forget about laws, the term was incorrect.
And FYI I'm Chilean, so this is hardly nationalism. I'm just talking about the french educative system. But maybe saying that France boards the Atlantic Sea and Germany doesn't is nationalism, too.
About your "observations", are you telling us that you don't have an axiomatic approach in general? Does this mean that you never base yourself on preexistent work? Does that mean that you can't even use Pythagoras theorem because this would be and axiomatic approach?
Let me doubt that you always start from scratch and empiric work, "observations".
|
when did we get onto maths? I feel like I've been hijacked.
On June 27 2011 20:57 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote: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... Forget about laws, the term was incorrect. And FYI I'm Chilean, so this is hardly nationalism. I'm just talking about the french educative system. But maybe saying that France boards the Atlantic Sea and Germany doesn't is nationalism, too. About your "observations", are you telling us that you don't have an axiomatic approach in general? Does this mean that you never base yourself on preexistent work? Does that mean that you can't even use Pythagoras theorem because this would be and axiomatic approach? Let me doubt that you always start from scratch and empiric work, "observations".
Lets just say its important to keep checking back to make sure that after 3 or 4 steps of logic, that your conclusions still make sense of your first observations.
idc if you are nationalistic, i just find it gross and one step away from other kinds of predudice.
|
On June 27 2011 20:57 deathly rat wrote:
when did we get onto maths? I feel like I've been hijacked.
Clearly you should have studied some of the liberal arts and less chemistry, if you don't understand the link. Note that my edit of that post was a good two minutes before your reply, and immediately after my post was made, so I assume you had plenty of time to read the entire thing.
|
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
|
On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
see above. The difference between maths and science is that maths is concerned with absolute proof, but there is no such thing in science. It's a different way of reasoning.
|
On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
No. Math is not empirical.
|
you didnt mention Descartes at all - no First Meditations?
|
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
|
On June 27 2011 21:08 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
No. Math is not empirical.
Math is an exact science.
And if you were saying that Maths does not need to prove the aformentioned elements, then there are axioms, therefore it's an axiomatic approach like any science that exists.
|
On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
Well, in a way. Aristotelian physics pretty much dominated the scene before Galileo and Newton so I guess philosophy and science do relate but the greek philosophies weren't evidence-based and their ideas were very different from modern theories even atomism is still something very different from the idea behind elementary physics. Mathematics also existed long before modern science.
If science or better physics is a blending of mathematics and philosophy then being good at both should make you an excellent physicist but that's not the case at all. I would prefer "related to" instead of "blending of".
|
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:
C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think this is largely a language issue. Just because the impermanence of the universe robs it of ultimate meaning doesn't prevent you, your life and your actions from being meaningful. It is the temporary nature of existence which makes our daily actions important.
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, for entropy will erase all labor when we stop.
|
On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out!
|
On June 27 2011 22:47 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this? Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out!
that's what i did and i ended up with chemistry, what'd you get?
|
On June 27 2011 22:54 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 22:47 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this? Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out! that's what i did and i ended up with chemistry, what'd you get?
Stephen Hawking's legs!
|
Finland612 Posts
I never understood how believing in god would give your life a satisfying meaning. If god existed and your only meaning was to please him, how would that be any better than not having any inherent meaning to your life? Ending up in a place for all eternity doesn't actually sound really nice.
I also find it strange when people think not disproving god somehow makes him real. When people say god doesn't exist, they actually mean there's no evidence to support his existance so there's absolutely no reason to believe he exists.
If you actually use pascals wager to justify your belief in god, here's something for you. I am actually god and if you don't send me 1000€ within a week, you will suffer twice as worse as you would in a christian view of hell and I will also rape your family. If you send me your money, all your wishes will come true. Let me know when have the money and I'll send you my bank info.
|
One thing I've learned from talking to religeous people is that belittling their beliefs is counter-productive. They just think you are arrogant and don't fully understand what they are trying to tell you.
|
On June 28 2011 00:34 deathly rat wrote:
One thing I've learned from talking to religeous people is that belittling their beliefs is counter-productive. They just think you are arrogant and don't fully understand what they are trying to tell you.
Vice versa is also available.
In the end, every person with each owns belief.
I however can't understand how rational people can believe that something can happen from nothing. Is that what science tells us? Is there any evidence that that can happen? Why believe that than?
|
The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?".
|
Before the big bang was another big bang, and so on. Until when? Forever? Is something forever around us? Why believe that?
And life came from nothing.
|
I'll just show you exactly why your question is nonsensical and shows that you're not applying your logic consistently.
Before God was there another God, and so on so forth? Until when? Forever? Is God forever around us? Why believe that?
|
Really now, and matter is not "nothing". In Biblical scripture God created Adam out of a handful of dust and his breath.
|
You did not show me anything lol.
Gods work ,to call it that, can't be rationalized and does not go by the same rules as exact science goes, and therefor the beliefs of atheists and others.
I am not a religious person. I don't go to the church and I don't cross my chest when I pass in front of one. But pure logic can't make me think that there is no God. Not by what we know so far of the Universe.
EDIT: God is to people what the string theory is to science. An explanation of everything that can never be proven.
|
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
I am a religious person, but seeing people use these shoddy bullshit arguments frustrates me to no end. Some people are just fucking insane. It's really no wonder Kierkegaard withdrew from society. Trying to get to God through logic?
Merde.
|
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end.
And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 28 2011 01:44 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot. Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end. And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
Actually everything is eternal as far as we know. Matter can't be created or destroyed.
|
You are misunderstanding the concept of time. A person is born and dies, but this only proves that the biological organism has a limited lifespan; it doesn't show in any way that time has a beginning and an end. When you watch a star expire, this doesn't show in any way that time has a beginning and an end. If the universe expands and collapses, ad infinitum, then its beginning and end is simply one of many beginning and ends of which there is no "true" beginning.
There is nothing to say that time has a beginning or end. You can only say this by using the concept of a Creator as an axiom, but this axiom has no rational grounds.
|
On June 28 2011 01:44 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot. Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end. And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
You don't know that. We assume that our immediate environment is not eternal, we don't know it.
Eternity is just as nonsensical as a beginning. We cannot comprehend nor imagine a "beginning" of times, because we cannot imagine nothingness. And if we do, we cannot explain how something can happen out of nothing; it's deeply illogical. Those are the limits of human perceptions you're trying to solve in a couple of sentences.
|
There is some evidence to suggest that the universe is expanding, and it is clearly in motion. The big bang is a theory which explains many observations, but nobody thinks it is complete and accurate. It is our best model for the information we have.
As for before the big bang, we have no evidence that I am aware of what there was before the big bang if there was anything. Any theories are pure conjecture, indeed it is a suitable time to bring in the philosophists.
I am happy to realise that there are limits to our collective knowledge. When we have such little information it is foolish to derive too many conclusions.
I understand that it is this knowledge vacuum that is occupied by many religeons, but I think it is disingenuous to claim that science can currently explain everything we see. There is much more to be discovered about the universe than all of our collective knowledge to date.
|
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:
Life has no inherent meaning.
Can someone please present the axioms and the reasoning that leads to this?
Because while i cannot present study evidence, i can logically reason for a set meaning of all life based on the axiom that all what we declare as live must obey physical laws (mainly thermodynamics, but i think it's best to include all, although i am not really sure).
btw:
On June 27 2011 18:45 ceaRshaf wrote:
You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right?
There is no free will. I have great trouble understanding why people cling to it so much. It's a product of our mind, just like any object/situation in a dream. But unlike with dreams, many people still see free will as a given.
Granted, many law systems are based on it, but if you apply rigor logic, you don't really need it as an axiom for them.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?".
Actually the theory at this stages gives no reason to believe that there was something before the moment of the Big Bang.
"Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation."
So the follow up questions are not the ones you described, but:
1) Can something come from nothing?
2) By the 3rd law of Newton:
"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous."
So by the above law, the cause and effect, we must question our selves what immense force can trigger an Universe to expand, because as science proves nothing triggers without a trigger. THIS ARE FACTS!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
As science tells it now, time starts with Big Band and ends with it. It's not me telling, but smart people.
From wiki about time:
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything that was before the Big Bang is just speculation, so I don't see how it's relevant to discussion.
What I find really interesting is the arrow of time.
In the exact moment of the Big Bang everything was one dens point and all forces were one (theory of singularity).
"In scientific terms, a gravitational singularity (or space-time singularity) is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. In other words, it is a point in which all physical laws are indistinguishable from one another, where space and time are no longer interrelated realities, but merge indistinguishably and cease to have any independent meaning."
This first moment is perfect order. PERFECT. The arrow of time is the law that claims in any isolated system (including the Universe) time passes through order to disorder.
I find this really interesting. Why is this? Why we get to go from order to disorder?
Is this last question making you guys happy? These are facts,not my opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not trying to make a point, just discussing.
EDIT:
Actually everything is eternal as far as we know. Matter can't be created or destroyed.
This is false. You are confusing matter with energy. And it starts with the Big Bang.
- The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
- Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 18:45 ceaRshaf wrote:
You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right? There is no free will. I have great trouble understanding why people cling to it so much. It's a product of our mind, just like any object/situation in a dream. But unlike with dreams, many people still see free will as a given.
What? The only other way around free will is determinism. Check it out.
Bottom line the human race doesn't know much for certain. It's a lot of theory.
|
You all need to read Gödel's theories, guys.
|
Show nested quote +The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?". Actually the theory at this stages gives no reason to believe that there was something before the moment of the Big Bang. "Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation."
And so the question is pointless, which you agree with.
So the follow up questions are not the ones you described, but:
It wasn't a follow-up question. That entire post was simply to show you how absurd your question was by returning it to you with your obsession in putting God into every little gap that is available.
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
The fact that no information of the events before the Big Bang are accessible has no meaning onto whether or not there actually was time before the Big Bang. It may be meaningless to the present universe, but not meaningless to the question. The last sentence is funny to me in light of his recent book that champions M-Theory and multiverses. There may not have been time in this specific universe before this specific Big Bang, but as one universe amongst many does it not stand then that the concept of time does not have a beginning in itself? There was time in other universes before our Big Bang. So time may have a beginning and end in the context of each singular universe, but the concept itself has no beginning and end.
|
How do you know there are many Universes?
Also I am not trying to prove the existence of God, I'm only showing why other's arguments are false by known facts.
|
I don't, I was talking about what Hawking said in his book.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 28 2011 05:35 ceaRshaf wrote:
So by the above law, the cause and effect, we must question our selves what immense force can trigger an Universe to expand, because as science proves nothing triggers without a trigger. THIS ARE FACTS!!!
And what was the first mover then? I doubt we'll ever know and god is no answer to that question.
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
That does not mean time did not exist before the big bang it just says we would not be able to access to any information on what happened before it. It's a pretty big difference.
This first moment is perfect order. PERFECT. The arrow of time is the law that claims in any isolated system (including the Universe) time passes through order to disorder.
I find this really interesting. Why is this? Why we get to go from order to disorder?
Is this last question making you guys happy? These are facts,not my opinions.
Read about vacuum energy and virtual particles, it's pretty complicated stuff. I think Hawking actually made a documentary about it, if you don't like reading.
This is false. You are confusing matter with energy. And it starts with the Big Bang.
- The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
- Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Sigh, ever heard of e=mc2? It doesn't start with the big bang, it is already there inside the singularity where the whole universe is.
|
I was really hyped up to see some Philosophy of knowledge, but I see no references to it except one to Kant in the beginning. No Gettier, no Plato or JTB, no Goldstein.
|
@ceaRshaf does it not seem conceited to you to take what you currently do not understand and just say "oh well it was probably God." That's basically saying "there exists something that I and no human currently understands and because of that, not only will I never understand it, but it is totally impossible for any human EVER to understand it." Even though there have been infinite points in human history where something was not understood, and then became understood.
|
Oh god, I had this exact conversation in class once...
Of course, everybody wants to die happy, which means living your lives in delusion, not seeing the horrors that actually goes on the real world..
I'm not gonna touch anymore... I've gotten so sick of the topic...
|
Well I don't think anyone always sees the horrors of the world, unless they're going through some sort of depression that makes them apathetic worms.
I wake up in the morning and eat some breakfast, all the murders, tortures, rapes and injustice doesn't really strike me the moment I'm conscious again.
There is no reason to be sick, that's just life. The only way one would be sick about such things would be by being deeply irrealistic.
|
On June 28 2011 11:36 bre1010 wrote:
@ceaRshaf does it not seem conceited to you to take what you currently do not understand and just say "oh well it was probably God." That's basically saying "there exists something that I and no human currently understands and because of that, not only will I never understand it, but it is totally impossible for any human EVER to understand it." Even though there have been infinite points in human history where something was not understood, and then became understood.
You think it is more concieted to say there are things we will never comprehend than it is to say that because we have managed to understand some things, humanity will someday be able to understand and comprehend all of everything that exists in the universe?
Your position seems more concieted to me.
|
On June 28 2011 04:40 jacen wrote:Can someone please present the axioms and the reasoning that leads to this?
The Universe is BIG, i am small. Nothing I do matters. /wrist
All meaning is subjective, but the cool kids want objective meaning.
Pick random tautologically impossible adjective to describe meaning and bemoan the lack of it.
|
Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound... of inevitability.
The conclusion is that everyone who views the world rationally should understand that the preservation of the self is meaningless. As such everyone who views the universe logically and rationally should kill themselves, since all thought devoted to it is inherently pointless and therefore unnecessary. The pursuit of individual satisfaction and happiness is worthless because the individual as a standalone entity is so small that it in and of itself is worthless. Since death is the inevitable end result it cancels all life pursuits, goals, joy, and accomplishments. Ergo, an expedient death is the most efficient way of fulfilling the inevitability of one's existence.
Enjoy
|
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.
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality.
"A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning."
What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else.
Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance.
The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth.
Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance.
This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite.
For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut.
However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction.
The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence.
Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority).
Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself.
It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact.
You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad.
|
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad.
If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest.
Huzzah!
|
On June 29 2011 08:10 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: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.
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest. Huzzah!
What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary.
" it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue"
It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue.
The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote:
What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary.
" it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue"
It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue.
The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities.
"A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning."
A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa.
B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise.
C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise.
Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats.
It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them.
|
On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 08:10 deathly rat wrote:On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: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.
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest. Huzzah! What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities.
Use your self reliance and self-honesty to work it out.
|
On June 29 2011 08:56 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote:
What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary.
" it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue"
It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue.
The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities.
A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa. B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise. C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise. Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats. It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them.
There is nothing in my post that suggests that God exists or doesn`t exist. So it is with the other two statements. If anyone find himself willing to accuse me of hipocrisy, please take that into account.
Absence of evidence means you have no evidence means you don`t know. One should not treat assumptions/ hipothesis as reality.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 09:21 UFO wrote:
There is nothing in my post that suggests that God exists or doesn`t exist. So it is with the other two statements. If anyone find himself willing to accuse me of hipocrisy, please take that into account.
Absence of evidence means you have no evidence means you don`t know. One should not treat assumptions/ hipothesis as reality.
Absence for evidence for the claim being made is what I meant. In other words theist claims that god exists. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so there is no reason to believe god exists -> god does not exist. Like I said you don't know for sure that he does not exist, but you can't be completely sure anything is true. You do know that there is nothing that supports the claim that god exists. Do you understand what I mean?
You have to make assumptions in real life, because you can't do anything in life otherwise. It doesn't always have to be the absolute truth. If you know a likely outcome, you should act accordingly.
Can you explain what you mean by assumption? Just to make sure we have the same understanding of the word. Because what I just explained is not blindly claiming that there is no god/man is mortal/no inherent meaning with no reason to back it up with. I explained the reasons in my earlier post.
|
On June 29 2011 09:04 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote:On June 29 2011 08:10 deathly rat wrote:On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: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.
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest. Huzzah! What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities. Use your self reliance and self-honesty to work it out.
Sir, how about you use your spectacular trolling-detection capabilities ? You seem to be able to detect trolling when there is no trolling so maybe you are able to detect trolling when you yourself seem to be doing it.
I don`t know why you think my post represented trolling and why do you think it was hipocritical and illogical. Your replies contain unexplained accusations and little more.
Please explain what exactly do you find illogical/hipocritical and why, preferably let that be a transparent and complete explantation, without sarcasm, otherwise the discussion might not be constructive and I`m not particularly interested in flaming or arguing. If you can do this, then at least one of us will learn from it.
|
On June 29 2011 09:34 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:21 UFO wrote:
There is nothing in my post that suggests that God exists or doesn`t exist. So it is with the other two statements. If anyone find himself willing to accuse me of hipocrisy, please take that into account.
Absence of evidence means you have no evidence means you don`t know. One should not treat assumptions/ hipothesis as reality.
Absence for evidence for the claim being made is what I meant. In other words theist claims that god exists. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so there is no reason to believe god exists -> god does not exist. Like I said you don't know for sure that he does not exist, but you can't be completely sure anything is true. You do know that there is nothing that supports the claim that god exists. Do you understand what I mean? You have to make assumptions in real life, because you can't do anything in life otherwise. It doesn't always have to be the absolute truth. If you know a likely outcome, you should act accordingly. Can you explain what you mean by assumption? Just to make sure we have the same understanding of the word. Because what I just explained is not blindly claiming that there is no god/man is mortal/no inherent meaning with no reason to back it up with. I explained the reasons in my earlier post.
First, language is quite arbitrary and so are definitions of words, lets not make a war of terminology out of this.
Assumption represents an act of establishing that something is true without evidence to back it up, at least thats what I meant by assumption.
I didn`t say that one should never make assumptions. Its all right as long as one remains open, remembers that it is not a fact but an assumption and treats it for what it is: an assumption, not a fact proven by irrefutable evidence. Treating assumptions as facts breeds ignorance. The moment one begins perceiving assumption as a fact, one`s worldview is at great risk of being built upon or influenced by a false assumption.
There is no certainty about the truthfulness of an assumption and to treat it as a fact is to claim that there is such certainty, which is dishonest. Assumption should remain an assumption, it can help in decision making but it is to be tested and verified.
|
On June 29 2011 08:56 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote:
What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary.
" it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue"
It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue.
The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities.
A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa. B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise. C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise. Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats. It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them.
There's nothing wrong with the B point.
A: You're committing the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason Santa does not exist is the empirical observation that reindeer cannot fly and that no one lives on the Northpole in a toy sweatshop. The concept of God is also far less concrete than those such as Santa or other mythical creatures. Mythical creatures are definitionally physical creatures, God is not, which is why lack of physical observance of sufficient to disprove the existence of those, but not of God.
C: "There is no proof that life has inherent meaning" - This is such a terrible claim. It absolutely begs the question of what it means to have "inherent meaning." Other possible rephrasings of this statement are "Why am I here?" or "What is the point of life?" These questions rest on nonsensical assumptions. For instance, why must you justify our process of living beyond life? As reasoning creatures, "meaning" is unique to our processes of understanding, and as such, our "meaning" is borne out of that very process of living and intellectually existing/progressing.
|
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality.
Rationality is not clearly defined as a term, but the OP kindly defined his method of rationality, it being that we can only use the information that we observe to form our judgements. This is a rational way of thinking. You have accused him of falsley using a term which I find to be accurate without providing any kind if definition your self or explaining why his definition is wrong. Very poor and unclear argumentation.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
"A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning."
What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else.
Using his method of rationale, the OP has come to these conclusions. By his own definitions these are entirely logical. You can argue that they are false conclusions, but only by attacking his first statement that we can only use information that we observe. You don't and indeed must not use imagination to deduce these things from the initial statement of rational. If there is a flaw in the actual logic, please do point it out.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance.
The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth.
The only conclusion from these statements is the "the truth" is unknowable. This concept of "the truth" is the fundamental lynch pin of your position, which appear to be a semi-spiritual unreachable nirvana. It seems like a highly irrational concept, especially considering the definitions of rationality laid down by the OP.
However I am willing to bet that you can't write down any kind of sensible definition of what "the truth" is all about, because it is a concept that is kept indistinct and unknowable in order for you to maintain that there can never be any conclusions drawn from this discussion.
Explain "the truth"
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance.
This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite.
This is what I find most hypocritical. That you assume that the OP has rushed to conclusions. You have no idea who this person is or how long they have considered their position. There is nothing in the OP that tells us how much thought has gone into it. You are the one who has rushed to a conclusion here.
Then you state that he hasn't fully taken into account possibilities and factors which are inifinately numerous. How can any ever analyse an infinate amount of information? It is common practice, when a census of all information is impossible, to use a sample or measure all the information to hand and draw conclusions from these. Have you got a problem with this principle?
Can't we all be accused of being ignorant of our ignorances? How many things that you are unaware of are you currently unaware of? This a stupid argument.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut.
All assumptions that you have no evidence for, which you are fond of accusing the OP of doing.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction.
How do you know there is no easy way to "the truth". Have you found out the truth and know the meaning of life the universe and everything? Unless you know what the truth is and how you find the truth, don't assume that it isn't easy to acquire.
Understanding anything is knowledge. Please give me an example of something you understand, and tell me how that isn't a peice of knowledge. This whole paragraph is full of "truth" BS which you really need to define so we can have a laugh at it.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence.
More truth nonsense
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority).
It is clear you think you are the real non-conformist, which puts you right in with the rest of the people you are descibing. You seem to claim it is stupid to believe things that you see and hear, and you assume that people are stupid and have no filter to the media. You haven't considered that we are all infinately different in some ways, but the same in others. You write like you don't include yourself with the rest of humanity, which is either comical, or disturbing.
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote:
Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself.
It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact.
You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad.
What I most note in your essay of drivel is that there is a distinct lack of rational thinking, or logical deduction. There is no clear progression in your ideas, it is only a series of judgements on the rest of humanity together with many many assumptions about the state of the human condition and the world.
You give no evidence or reasoning for your opinions and then accuse others of the same.
This is why I cannot take any of this seriously, and you are a troll.
Good day sir.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 10:09 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the B point.
A: You're committing the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason Santa does not exist is the empirical observation that reindeer cannot fly and that no one lives on the Northpole in a toy sweatshop. The concept of God is also far less concrete than those such as Santa or other mythical creatures. Mythical creatures are definitionally physical creatures, God is not, which is why lack of physical observance of sufficient to disprove the existence of those, but not of God.
C: "There is no proof that life has inherent meaning" - This is such a terrible claim. It absolutely begs the question of what it means to have "inherent meaning." Other possible rephrasings of this statement are "Why am I here?" or "What is the point of life?" These questions rest on nonsensical assumptions. For instance, why must you justify our process of living beyond life? As reasoning creatures, "meaning" is unique to our processes of understanding, and as such, our "meaning" is borne out of that very process of living and intellectually existing/progressing.
A. You missed my point completely. There are non-physical mythical creatures. What about all ancient gods like Zeus and the egyptian ones? What does the concreteness of god have to do with anything?
Do you believe your god has ever affected anything inside our universe? If yes, it would leave evidence. If no, there still is no evidence and nothing justifies believing in one. If you're arguement for the existance of god is such that you can replace god with any other non-physical being, it doesn't prove anything. You might as well say pink interdimensional monkey fairies did it. I could say that everything santa has is invisible and can not be detected by any means and oh he doesn't leave any evidence anywhere, but still he exists.
The default position in everything is that it does not exist until proven otherwise, now I hope you know what burden of proof means. Basically without evidence to support god, the answer to the question his existance still remains no. It is not an arguement from ignorance, because you
1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven.
2. God hasn't been proven so go figure.
It seems like when it comes to god only an objective 100% true and infallible evidence satisfies people, which I find strange, because that is not possible to achieve and is not required for anything else either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Really now? When you check your pockets for coins and don't find anything, do you think that there are coins in them you don't know of? In this scenario the pocket is the universe and the searching hand is the scientific method. So far there has been nothing to suggest there are any coins in here.
C. I don't think life needs an inherent meaning. It's just that theists mostly think they are the chosen ones who have a universal plan for them made by the omnipotent skydaddy. What I meant was that no such plan exists.
EDIT:
On June 29 2011 09:53 UFO wrote:
First, language is quite arbitrary and so are definitions of words, lets not make a war of terminology out of this.
Assumption represents an act of establishing that something is true without evidence to back it up, at least thats what I meant by assumption.
I didn`t say that one should never make assumptions. Its all right as long as one remains open, remembers that it is not a fact but an assumption and treats it for what it is: an assumption, not a fact proven by irrefutable evidence. Treating assumptions as facts breeds ignorance. The moment one begins perceiving assumption as a fact, one`s worldview is at great risk of being built upon or influenced by a false assumption.
There is no certainty about the truthfulness of an assumption and to treat it as a fact is to claim that there is such certainty, which is dishonest. Assumption should remain an assumption, it can help in decision making but it is to be tested and verified.
Let me see if I can give you an example.
Does god exist?
Yes - Why? Provide your evidence
No - The default position when there is no evidence.
Don't know, he might exist - if there is no evidence to support his existance HE DOES NOT EXIST.
What I think you are going after is that everything that isn't based on infallible evidence is just an assumption. By that logic everything is an assumption. Is your nickname on TL UFO? Nope, you're just assuming that, it could be an illusion.
It is tested and verified that there is no evidence for god, how hard is it to get this into your skulls. If you have absolutely no evidence about something, you can say it does not exist and it will not be an assumption. See burden of proof.
|
You're being an idiot, even though I agree with you.
I sometimes feel bad about being an atheist, when I see atheists like Sotamursu.
I find it amazing that you STILL don't see the gigantic fallacy you're using in your posts. A GIANT ELEPHANT could EAT YOUR GRANDMA in front of you, you would probably not notice.
Default state is "not knowing".
It is not "it doesn't exist", "doesn't exist" is a BELIEF.
Take the example of a newborn, he does not know the world.
He is introduced to the concept of God.
He can either believe it, or not - keeping in mind that here, God is UNDEFINED.
He is introduced to the concept of Japan.
He can either believe it, or not. Because he has not witnessed it. People running around chasing schoolgirls could seem like an unrealistic environment.
It does not mean Japan doesn't exist until he travels to Tokyo.
I really hate when atheists show that kind of burning faith. "Look at religious people, so blindly faithful about their false beliefs!".
It just makes me want to smash their faces with a mirror.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 Kukaracha wrote:
You're being an idiot, even though I agree with you.
I sometimes feel bad about being an atheist, when I see atheists like Sotamursu.
I find it amazing that you STILL don't see the gigantic fallacy you're using in your posts. A GIANT ELEPHANT could EAT YOUR GRANDMA in front of you, you would probably not notice.
Default state is "not knowing".
It is not "it doesn't exist", "doesn't exist" is a BELIEF.
Take the example of a newborn, he does not know the world.
He is introduced to the concept of God.
He can either believe it, or not - keeping in mind that here, God is UNDEFINED.
He is introduced to the concept of Japan.
He can either believe it, or not. Because he has not witnessed it. People running around chasing schoolgirls could seem like an unrealistic environment.
It does not mean Japan doesn't exist until he travels to Tokyo.
I really hate when atheists show that kind of burning faith. "Look at religious people, so blindly faithful about their false beliefs!".
It just makes me want to smash their faces with a mirror.
Does shiva exist?
EDIT: since you and many others don't seem to comprehend anything I'm saying, maybe reading other sources will make you understand.
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm
|
The only reason I am rejoining this discussion is to tell Sotamursu that he is an idiot. There! Now I've said it. I feel much more happy.
1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven.
2. God hasn't been proven so go figure.
You really have no idea how many things have been known before they could have been proven. Even chemical elements from the periodic chart have been known to exist before they've been discovered.
BECAUSE WE HAVE BRAINS AND CAN THINK OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CAN REACH PHYSICALLY !!!
Maybe Gog is sitting in a chair at milions of light years away. Until we have a telescope that can reach that far we will have no proof of him existing.
I could say more, but I don't want to fuel this topic.
EDIT: Also, one purpose of life can be to just breed. I take this from the smallest life forms that live for seconds, and all they do is breed. Why breed, don't know, but it is part of the Universe liking to complicate itself.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:34 ceaRshaf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The only reason I am rejoining this discussion is to tell Sotamursu that he is an idiot. There! Now I've said it. I feel much more happy. 1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven.
2. God hasn't been proven so go figure. You really have no idea how many things have been known before they could have been proven. Even chemical elements from the periodic chart have been known to exist before they've been discovered. BECAUSE WE HAVE BRAINS AND CAN THINK OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CAN REACH PHYSICALLY !!!Maybe Gog is sitting in a chair at milions of light years away. Until we have a telescope that can reach that far we will have no proof of him existing. I could say more, but I don't want to fuel this topic. EDIT: Also, one purpose of life can be to just breed. I take this from the smallest life forms that live for seconds, and all they do is breed. Why breed, don't know, but it is part of the Universe liking to complicate itself .
This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, not that I'm surprised, you don't even know basic physics.
|
Please explain sir, I am waiting to be enlightened.
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 30 2011 05:50 ceaRshaf wrote:
Please explain sir, I am waiting to be enlightened.
I already have, if you could actually read and comprehend what you are reading you would know that.
|
I know you've read my post, but I am editing it because you don't deserve the attention.
|
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.
OP wasn't saying these were possibilities, he was saying they were the ONLY possibilities.
Since you can't change the world, change your philosophy to make it seem better.
Most philosophical basis are equally unprovable, so stop being sad and be awesome instead!
|
Sorry if someone already mentioned this view point, tried to read the more recent pages but it seems like things got derailed pretty fast. Your viewpoint is very similar to mine, as for my own reasons I do not believe that God exists and I do not believe that there is an inherent meaning of life. However, I don't think that coming to this conclusion means you have to go through life miserable. It's like Torte was saying back on page 1, the meaning of life can be what you make of it.
For example, I don't believe that I was born with a special purpose or meaning, however I know that while i live/exist I want to be happy. Thus, I can make the meaning of my life to be happy, and if I think about it like that, it's not depressing at all. I still view the world rationally (in my opinion at least), and I don't feel depressed at all that there is no "overall meaning" of life.
TLDR; I don't believe one has to make a choice between rationality or depression.
|
Being happy comes from our instinct of not wanting to feel pain, physical and emotional.
I find the instinct really interesting. How come you get to be born with some knowledge a priori (not based on prior experiences). You don't need a lesson to know that you like the opposite gender. You don't need a lesson to fear for your life. What is with all the knowledge that is passed through generations?
|
If you look at the world "rationally" you will understand that humans are pompous, dressed up monkeys who can hardly register more than a tiny fraction of objective reality with their primitive contraptions and pathetic 3d + linear time perception.
When people scream "prove it! prove it!" with regard to pretty much anything remotely metaphysical it's like they are shouting at ants to prove the existence of satellites.
I'd much rather discuss religion and afterlife topics with a seasoned psychoactive drug user than a scientist or philosopher :p
|
I have no idea, but I believe it doesn't because it is a very specific God with a very specific cult and mythology. The more specific a "God" is, the less likely to exists it seems to me.
I find it incredible that you STILL don't get it. I read your link, and a few things:
- Science has its own dogmas, which are disputed by the scientific crowd,
- Stating that one of the scientific dogamas is right is having FAITH in that way of thinking.
- It only aims to disprove the existance of a THEIST God and not the existance of a DEIST God, learn the god damned difference.
Thanks for painting your ignorance all over this thread and taking away credibility from serious atheists who try to have a moderate and critical view of the subject.
You even look as you consider science as one united movement and seem to forget that science is something to be thought about.
|
EDIT: since you and many others don't seem to comprehend anything I'm saying, maybe reading other sources will make you understand.
Lol, battle of the links? Not every word from any mouth matters.
The article is fun.
"Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe."
He has a giant wheel in his hands and he keeps it spinning. If he stops, the Universe stops.
"Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence."
He has the magic wheel.
"Look for such evidence with an open mind."
I'm looking. Note, with open mind.
"If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist."
But......I can't find it. Noooooo...
"If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist."
Ok, I understand now. Wow, I feel so much better.
We are not drawing conclusions only from empirical knowledge (based on observation and experiments) but also on pure knowledge.
|
|
|
Finland612 Posts
On June 30 2011 20:25 Kukaracha wrote:I have no idea, but I believe it doesn't because it is a very specific God with a very specific cult and mythology. The more specific a "God" is, the less likely to exists it seems to me.
I fail to see how a deist god is any more plausible than a theist one. Both are supported by zero evidence. Even if it's a tiny bit more likely that it exists, it's still ten miles beyond seriously thinking that it exists. AS YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.
I find it incredible that you STILL don't get it. I read your link, and a few things:
- Science has its own dogmas, which are disputed by the scientific crowd,
- Stating that one of the scientific dogamas is right is having FAITH in that way of thinking.
I find it incredible that you didn't understand anything you read. Did you skip the part where it shows how you "disprove" anything that isn't supported with evidence? Do you even know how the scientific method works? You are the one claiming there is a deist god, yet you don't give evidence for it's existance and just prance around somehow trying to avoid the burden of proof. I can't and you should not believe in such a big claim without anything to back it up.
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had. The thing that is disputed in the scientific community are the specific claims, tests and results, not the way the whole thing works and it's not like the scientific community has never reached a consensus.
- It only aims to disprove the existance of a THEIST God and not the existance of a DEIST God, learn the god damned difference.
Do you really think that the deist god is somehow above the scientific method? If you know a better method for determining true claims from false claims go ahead and inform the world. I'm sure the scientific community will shower you with money as you've pretty much made one of the most important discoveries for man kind.
Thanks for painting your ignorance all over this thread and taking away credibility from serious atheists who try to have a moderate and critical view of the subject.
What. The. Fuck. It's like I'm talking to a creationist, only ten times worse.
You even look as you consider science as one united movement and seem to forget that science is something to be thought about.
Uhh, because it is? Have you ever heard of peer review? Since you're borderline illiterate let me give you a short version of how it works.
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Propose an explanation
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results (The scientific community looks at your work and makes sure it's legit)
Retest (falsifiability)
This is how any serious claim is tested, of course claims like "I had toast for breakfast" doesn't need such serious testing, because it is quite plausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that the universe has a creator that is outside time and space is a pretty serious claim and requires very solid evidence.
On June 30 2011 21:16 ceaRshaf wrote:
We are not drawing conclusions only from empirical knowledge (based on observation and experiments) but also on pure knowledge.
Pure knowledge? Is that what you're whole side of the arguement is based on? I mean if this magical knowledge is not based on observation and experiments the first thing that comes to mind is how do you know it's true? If this is some new age bullshit, I am not going to reply any further.
|
You are such a troll. Read Kant about pure knowledge. New age stuff...what an ignorant.
Sotamursu you are not making any sense and i think you are to dumb to realize it. For me it's fine, but you have to face the world with that brain of yours. Ouch...
I respect a good atheist that at least brings up Darwin and other good scientific explanations, but yours are just....stupid.
|
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had.
It is good where it applies, but not all understanding submits to rational analysis.
Is true love real?
|
Finland612 Posts
On July 01 2011 04:10 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had. It is good where it applies, but not all understanding submits to rational analysis. Is true love real?
Yes, it's a chemical reaction in your brain.
|
Finland612 Posts
On July 01 2011 03:58 ceaRshaf wrote:
You are such a troll. Read Kant about pure knowledge. New age stuff...what an ignorant.
Sotamursu you are not making any sense and i think you are to dumb to realize it. For me it's fine, but you have to face the world with that brain of yours. Ouch...
I respect a good atheist that at least brings up Darwin and other good scientific explanations, but yours are just....stupid.
Honestly I was starting to suspect I was getting trolled, and this was the last straw. First you reject everything empirical and then say I should've brought up Darwin whose work is based on fucking science? On top of that Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of god. This conversatioon is over.
|
Honestly I was starting to suspect I was getting trolled, and this was the last straw. First you reject everything empirical and then say I should've brought up Darwin whose work is based on fucking science? On top of that Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of god. This conversatioon is over.
See, you can't understand simple logic. I was saying that if you were a decent atheist you would have at least brought up Darwin to support your case, not stupid links from nobodies. I was not saying that to prove points. It's like talking to a 2 year old.
Richard Dawkins, one known atheist, bases most of his arguments on Darwin. Please do your homework.
|
Darwin is irrelevant to theology. You're basically an idiot that hasn't actually read Kant and is completely ignorant to any of the actual workings of philosophy and theology of the past century and a half. Citing Dawkins as an argument for the nonexistence of God has about as much weight as asking a theologian about physical chemistry. Every post of yours betrays just how goddamned clueless you are about the entire discourse, and it's all the more frustrating because you hijacked a thread to spout on about your inane opinions.
What a goddamned waste of time.
|
Ok.
But maybe you can take the time to explain to me why I'm clueless. It's easy to throw words.
|
Sotamursu you're mistakenly taking the view that the default position is NO -DOES NOT EXIST. There are three positions. YES - DON'T KNOW - NO. The lack of empirical evidence only proves the middle position. Let us reverse your argument because we can. You claim: this "thing" does not exist. I ask for you to provide empirical evidence to back up your claim. You want to use non-evidence AS your evidence. This cannot work because effectively I have been provided with nothing.
By your argument, multiple universes or aliens or anything fantastical like that MUST not exist because there is currently no empirical evidence saying we have detected anything of the sort. Does this mean it plainly does not exist? No, that's taking a leap of faith, actually.
|
Finland612 Posts
On July 01 2011 05:21 j0k3r wrote:
Sotamursu you're mistakenly taking the view that the default position is NO -DOES NOT EXIST. There are three positions. YES - DON'T KNOW - NO. The lack of empirical evidence only proves the middle position. Let us reverse your argument because we can. You claim: this "thing" does not exist. I ask for you to provide empirical evidence to back up your claim. You want to use non-evidence AS your evidence. This cannot work because effectively I have been provided with nothing.
By your argument, multiple universes or aliens or anything fantastical like that MUST not exist because there is currently no empirical evidence saying we have detected anything of the sort. Does this mean it plainly does not exist? No, that's taking a leap of faith, actually.
You didn't read any of my earlier post did you? When I say god does not exist, I do not mean it some weird ultimate objective truth. Lack of evidence can be used as evidence in this case. I reject the existance of god or anything else that hasn't been proven on the basis that they haven't been proven. That is my position.
I don't understand how you can say that not a single scientific discovery in the history of mankind pointing to the existance of a deity as nothing. You might as well say you don't know anything because you can never be truly sure that the knowledge you have at the moment is true. How do you determine the non-existance of something?
|
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
I find it incredible that you didn't understand anything you read. Did you skip the part where it shows how you "disprove" anything that isn't supported with evidence? Do you even know how the scientific method works? You are the one claiming there is a deist god, yet you don't give evidence for it's existance and just prance around somehow trying to avoid the burden of proof. I can't and you should not believe in such a big claim without anything to back it up.
1) I'm an atheist.
2) So,
Induction,
Deduction,
Abduction,
Hypothetical-deductive method,
Observation,
Experimentation,
Reproducibility,
Difference method,
Methods of Mill,
Accordance and concordance,
Etc.
Wich seems to be not, one, but many different kinds of methods, and this is why the term of "epistemological anarchy" was created.
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had. The thing that is disputed in the scientific community are the specific claims, tests and results, not the way the whole thing works and it's not like the scientific community has never reached a consensus.
Oh, ok, so what is this unique and universal "scientific method" you could apply in physics, mathematics and neurology?
Positivist, much, my friend?
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
Do you really think that the deist god is somehow above the scientific method? If you know a better method for determining true claims from false claims go ahead and inform the world. I'm sure the scientific community will shower you with money as you've pretty much made one of the most important discoveries for man kind.
You're proceeding by inductions. Karl Popper made a strong critic of such an outdated logic by pointing out that any hypothesis can never be certain since one single observation going against it will invalidate everything.
He stated that not everything was a legitimate ground for scientific research; anything that can be empirically verified belongs to the scientific sphere, but theories that can not be invalidated should not be studied.
A deist God can not be invalidated since the concept implies that the only element suggesting its existence is our own. A deist God does not intervene on the world, nor is he defined as a known entity.
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
This is how any serious claim is tested, of course claims like "I had toast for breakfast" doesn't need such serious testing, because it is quite plausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that the universe has a creator that is outside time and space is a pretty serious claim and requires very solid evidence.
Oho! This doesn't look very rigorous to me! Is that your "scientific method"? When does something become and extraordinary claim? How do you define them from normal claims?
There seems to be a misunderstanding (or ignorance) regarding the term "deist". A deist God does not necessarily manifest itself; it is only there because deists assume that there must be a beginning. Something emerging from nothing (big bang) or something that is everlasting (eternal space) can not be imagined by the human brain, much like the alleged shape of the universe.
Deism consists in believing that this terra icognita can only be explained through a superior power that lies beyond our understanding. No cult or precise definition is involved.
As for me, I believe that this is just beyond our reach, but the idea that some sort of power or entity could "explain" all this seems unlikely. This is why I'm an atheist. But thinking that science can one day explain what we can't even imagine in our craziest dreams is FAITH since no one knows the future.
Unless you do know that the human brain will solve this problem and discover all there is to discover. But this requires some sort of magical powers, and I seem to understand that you don't think magical powers exist (even though you think you can disprove and idea that can not be proven in the first place.
|
I just read a whole bunch of stuff about Kant and his ideas.
Do you realise that he was a philosopher in the 18th Century? Do you realise the kind of scientific knowledge they had back then? His view of the world and his philosophies are a clearly a product of his time and are so out dated as to be only interesting in an historical sense.
Do you ever wonder why all of the famous philosophers are from before the scientific revolution? We have the tools now to find the real answer to questions philosophers could only hypothesize about back in the 18th century.
Essentially many branches of philosophy have been made redundant by advances in science. The way the mind works and why people behave the way they do is one obvious example from the work of Kant. Much of it is complete conjecture that any modern neuroscientist/behavioural psychologist would be able to answer in a flash with certainty.
Philosophy still has many practical uses, for example in the areas of ethics and politics. However when thinking about the matter of fact, way things are, then philosophy has completely lost it's place in society.
So by all means argue philosophy about whether you can have a positive outlook on life if you percieve it as a godless universe, but don't actually try and use 18th century philosophy to talk about the existance of god. We have definately gone beyond that.
|
On July 01 2011 05:53 deathly rat wrote:
Do you ever wonder why all of the famous philosophers are from before the scientific revolution?
Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Arendt, Nietzsche, Tillich, Levinas, Derrida, Foucalt, Deleuze, A.J. Ayers, Russel, Wittgenstein, Popper, Marx, Marion, Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
Have you never heard of philosophy of science? Or the fact that the very methods of scientific inquiry are philosophical? The traditions of the modern natural sciences have been heavily influenced by some rather specific philosophical traditions. Basically, you have no idea what philosophy is.
|
On July 01 2011 05:53 deathly rat wrote:
I just read a whole bunch of stuff about Kant and his ideas.
Do you realise that he was a philosopher in the 18th Century? Do you realise the kind of scientific knowledge they had back then? His view of the world and his philosophies are a clearly a product of his time and are so out dated as to be only interesting in an historical sense.
[...] Blablabla [...]
Karl Popper, epistemology, Bachelard, Poincaré, etc.
It's not because you haven't opened a philosophy book from the 19th century that there were no philosophers since then. All those I mentioned are pretty famous. Not as much as Kant but Kant was an incredible revolution of rigor in his time.
Ah, wait, burden of proof... what about a death certificate?
I could tell you to read a book, but I remember a recent scandal in which a french "intellectual" quoted and imaginary philosopher, not realizing that it had been made up by another writer. Probably fooled by the normal proof (web pages, books, articles), as it was a normal claim, and didn't need extraordinary proof (see the universal scientific method of our friend).
Edit: wait... I just realized... is a death certificate an extraordinary proof? Is it overkill? Please tell me.
|
On July 01 2011 06:00 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 05:53 deathly rat wrote:
Do you ever wonder why all of the famous philosophers are from before the scientific revolution? Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Arendt, Nietzsche, Tillich, Levinas, Derrida, Foucalt, Deleuze, A.J. Ayers, Russel, Wittgenstein, Popper, Marx, Marion, Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on Have you never heard of philosophy of science? Or the fact that the very methods of scientific inquiry are philosophical? The traditions of the modern natural sciences have been heavily influenced by some rather specific philosophical traditions. Basically, you have no idea what philosophy is.
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.
I've read some Bertrand Russel. I like it, but he was atheist sadly for you.
|
I like Feynman but he is oblivious to the fact that scientific inquiry and rigor is built upon axioms that are limited in on themselves. There is always a philosophical background and ideology behind the natural sciences.
And why would Russel being an atheist be a "sad" thing for me? I dislike Russel, but my dislike of him has nothing to do with his atheism and is about how he was an arrogant aristocrat who was a champion of a school of thought that was flawed from the core. That's as stupid as saying that I have to like Aquinas because I'm religious, which is retarded.
|
On July 01 2011 06:08 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 06:00 koreasilver wrote:On July 01 2011 05:53 deathly rat wrote:
Do you ever wonder why all of the famous philosophers are from before the scientific revolution? Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Arendt, Nietzsche, Tillich, Levinas, Derrida, Foucalt, Deleuze, A.J. Ayers, Russel, Wittgenstein, Popper, Marx, Marion, Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on Have you never heard of philosophy of science? Or the fact that the very methods of scientific inquiry are philosophical? The traditions of the modern natural sciences have been heavily influenced by some rather specific philosophical traditions. Basically, you have no idea what philosophy is. “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman. I've read some Bertrand Russel. I like it, but he was atheist sadly for you.
Well Richard Feynman should stick to physics then. : )
Philosophy is a very vague term, and I think you'll be more than happy to know that many scientists ARE philosophers! Hurray! And they don't even have a white beard. That's right.
Bachelard was a physics and chemistry teacher, Poincaré was one of the last all-around scientists with a high expertise in various domains.
And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?
Amazing, right? Thinking about stuff. Well that's philosophy, among other things...
|
Too many people have this misconception that philosophy is just about throwing around truisms and speculative metaphysics.
|
On July 01 2011 06:19 koreasilver wrote:
Too many people have this misconception that philosophy is just about throwing around truisms and speculative metaphysics.
You still need to start the explanation in a simple way...
The core of philosophy is a rigorous thought process, any deeper definition is not a good introduction, and is a complex task.
|
Finland612 Posts
Oh, ok, so what is this unique and universal "scientific method" you could apply in physics, mathematics and neurology?
Positivist, much, my friend?
Uh, I'm kind of confused. The scientific method refers to the stuff you mentioned above and we apply all those in different branches of science. I'm not saying that at any point in time there will never be a better method for science, there just isn't a better one at the moment or in the near future.
You're proceeding by inductions. Karl Popper made a strong critic of such an outdated logic by pointing out that any hypothesis can never be certain since one single observation going against it will invalidate everything.
He stated that not everything was a legitimate ground for scientific research; anything that can be empirically verified belongs to the scientific sphere, but theories that can not be invalidated should not be studied.
That seems reasonable. Studying something that is not falsifiable would be a waste of time.
A deist God can not be invalidated since the concept implies that the only element suggesting its existence is our own. A deist God does not intervene on the world, nor is he defined as a known entity.
Which makes claiming that such a god exist pointless, since you can never know if he did anything or existed. You could replace that with any other imaginary being that can not be detected through any means.
Oho! This doesn't look very rigorous to me! Is that your "scientific method"? When does something become and extraordinary claim? How do you define them from normal claims?
No it's not rigorous, maybe I should've put that better. My point was that a massive possibly world view altering claim should not be taken without giving it a second thought.
There seems to be a misunderstanding (or ignorance) regarding the term "deist". A deist God does not necessarily manifest itself; it is only there because deists assume that there must be a beginning. Something emerging from nothing (big bang) or something that is everlasting (eternal space) can not be imagined by the human brain, much like the alleged shape of the universe.
Deism consists in believing that this terra icognita can only be explained through a superior power that lies beyond our understanding. No cult or precise definition is involved.
I never quite understood reasoning like that. How can you say the universe can't be eternal, because it's hard or impossible to comprehend and then replace that with an even more harder to comprehend creature that is eternal and omnipotent. And just to clear something up, big bang isn't an event where something comes from nothing.
As for me, I believe that this is just beyond our reach, but the idea that some sort of power or entity could "explain" all this seems unlikely. This is why I'm an atheist. But thinking that science can one day explain what we can't even imagine in our craziest dreams is FAITH since no one knows the future.
If it affects us, or the world around us in any way or we can perceive it, it can be studied. Other than that I don't know what your point is in that paragraph, because it has explained a lot of stuff that people 5000 years ago wouldn't have thought up in their craziest dreams. I think it's way more likely that science will offer answers in the future, rather than believing gods.
Unless you do know that the human brain will solve this problem and discover all there is to discover. But this requires some sort of magical powers, and I seem to understand that you don't think magical powers exist (even though you think you can disprove and idea that can not be proven in the first place.
I don't think magic goes into the deist deity category. It's sort of an exception since it by definition can not be detected by any means. If people could summon fireballs from their hands and destroy buildings, it would be pretty hard to disprove that happened. You would notice that affecting the world around you.
I'm not even sure what we're debating about at the moment.
|
My dad's uncle was Russel's GP, cool story bro, i know.
"And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?"
Yes, ethics in science is a topic for philosophy. The outcomes of ethical decisions can never be labelled as "true" in any definative sense or objective sense. I already stated this.
|
On July 01 2011 06:38 deathly rat wrote:
My dad's uncle was Russel's GP, cool story bro, i know.
"And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?"
Yes, ethics in science is a topic for philosophy. The outcomes of ethical decisions can never be labelled as "true" in any definative sense or objective sense. I already stated this.
That isn't ethics.
|
On July 01 2011 06:45 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 06:38 deathly rat wrote:
My dad's uncle was Russel's GP, cool story bro, i know.
"And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?"
Yes, ethics in science is a topic for philosophy. The outcomes of ethical decisions can never be labelled as "true" in any definative sense or objective sense. I already stated this. That isn't ethics.
I can see how all that reading of philosophy has made you into a really eloquent individual /sarcasm
In fact none of your recent posts have done anything but rubbish the previous post. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile to the discussion mr 5000 posts.
|
Sotamursu, to sum up my position:
I believe that deism can not be disproved, and even though I too think that it is pointless, I just wanted to stress that an atheist should not aggressively argue with a deist person, and never claim they hold evidence for God's non-existance.
Furthermore, people like deists do not have cults or anything that has been or could be harmful in the history of religion. In short, they're not hurting anybody.
As a conclusion, I just think that everyone's ignorance should be kept in mind regarding this subject.
All the methods I listed differ from one another. I wanted to point out that for different domains, people use different methods, that are sometimes somewhat contradictory.
And my reasoning about the big bang being unimaginable is that our mind can not conceive infinity nor nothingness. We can talk about it, we can use it as a zero or an infinity sign, but we can not begin to comprehend it. The supposed shape of the universe (I don't know how to express it in english, but something along the lines of delimted but folded on itself on its center, you do not "get out" of it but never encounter any limit") or the concept of God strike our minds as illogical. If I were to describe an item that has his inside on the outside but is closed from the outer world... it's just illogical.
Of course, one can believe that science will go further and that such great mysteries will be inveiled. But my second point was that this is having faith in science. We do not know what the future will hold, and we do not know if people in the past would've had a basic logical problem with our world like we have with such odd concepts like infinity.
|
On July 01 2011 08:18 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 06:45 koreasilver wrote:On July 01 2011 06:38 deathly rat wrote:
My dad's uncle was Russel's GP, cool story bro, i know.
"And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?"
Yes, ethics in science is a topic for philosophy. The outcomes of ethical decisions can never be labelled as "true" in any definative sense or objective sense. I already stated this. That isn't ethics. I can see how all that reading of philosophy has made you into a really eloquent individual /sarcasm In fact none of your recent posts have done anything but rubbish the previous post. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile to the discussion mr 5000 posts.
I was referring to methods as the tools of the scientist, and philosophy as the reflexion the scientist has over his tools.
Believe it or not, philosophy has done a great deal for science, as they are very similar in some aspects.
The trend to seperate "abstract" and "logical" thinking is quite recent, and quite sad, I have to say. Before this, we would have brilliant geniuses who were not only specialists in their domain, but also strong and dynamic thinkers. Descartes is a great example.
We could argue that this is an answer to a growing common knowledge and more difficult questions, but many people still manage to pull off such combinations.
At the beginning of the century, an engineer needed an extensive knowledge of history, litterature, geography and philosophy; nowadays, if you're good in your speciality, you can get away with barely knowing how to write.
This also goes the other way round. Many contemporary philoso^phers lack the insight and rigorous down-to-earth thinking that the scientific crowd usually shares. Mainly because the two sides tend to reject each other a little. Well, at least among the crowd.
Edit: grammar.
|
On July 01 2011 08:18 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 06:45 koreasilver wrote:On July 01 2011 06:38 deathly rat wrote:
My dad's uncle was Russel's GP, cool story bro, i know.
"And yet, they sat down to think, hum, is what we're doing right? Or am I doing it wrong? How should I do it?"
Yes, ethics in science is a topic for philosophy. The outcomes of ethical decisions can never be labelled as "true" in any definative sense or objective sense. I already stated this. That isn't ethics. I can see how all that reading of philosophy has made you into a really eloquent individual /sarcasm In fact none of your recent posts have done anything but rubbish the previous post. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile to the discussion mr 5000 posts.
You're missing the entire point. The very center of modern natural philosophy, the adherence to empirical studies, is based around a philosophical ideology. Because of the deep influence of positivism on the natural sciences, the very structure of the natural sciences is always open to philosophical inquiry. The very position and structure of the natural sciences is a philosophical exercise. This isn't a question of ethics, it's a question of the very roots of scientific inquiry and the methods that are employed in it.
|
Whilst i agree that the early thinking that went into the formation of a scientific method was a philosophical exercise, I think it is clear that Science and Philosophy have taken 2 different paths. One on an empirical evidence based path and another on a path stemming from many leaps of internal logic and debate.
It is possible that you could call the whole of science a branch of philosophy, in that the formation of it's principles were rooted in philosophy, however it is clearly now a distictly different animal with not only differences in methodology and ideas, but also in society, conventions and institutions. To call philosophy and science the same thing, is to say that people are the same as fish.
This is also the reason scientists are no longer commonly philosophers and vica versa.
|
Finland612 Posts
On July 01 2011 08:40 Kukaracha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sotamursu, to sum up my position:
I believe that deism can not be disproved, and even though I too think that it is pointless, I just wanted to stress that an atheist should not aggressively argue with a deist person, and never claim they hold evidence for God's non-existance.
Furthermore, people like deists do not have cults or anything that has been or could be harmful in the history of religion. In short, they're not hurting anybody.
As a conclusion, I just think that everyone's ignorance should be kept in mind regarding this subject.
The problem is that if you can not disprove something by default, you can not prove it either and when you think scientifically, something you can not prove does not exist.
All the methods I listed differ from one another. I wanted to point out that for different domains, people use different methods, that are sometimes somewhat contradictory.
They do use different methods, but the observation, testing, peer review etc. are used in all fields. I think you're mixing up methods a bit. You would use an EEG in neurology, that does not mean EEG is a philosophical method, it's just a way to observe things in your brain.
+ Show Spoiler +And my reasoning about the big bang being unimaginable is that our mind can not conceive infinity nor nothingness. We can talk about it, we can use it as a zero or an infinity sign, but we can not begin to comprehend it. The supposed shape of the universe (I don't know how to express it in english, but something along the lines of delimted but folded on itself on its center, you do not "get out" of it but never encounter any limit") or the concept of God strike our minds as illogical. If I were to describe an item that has his inside on the outside but is closed from the outer world... it's just illogical.
You're talking about a singularity and there's nothing illogical in one. Hell there are countless black holes in the universe and they're all singularities. It's not even hard to understand, if you read about it for 5 minutes.
Of course, one can believe that science will go further and that such great mysteries will be inveiled. But my second point was that this is having faith in science. We do not know what the future will hold, and we do not know if people in the past would've had a basic logical problem with our world like we have with such odd concepts like infinity.
My point is that it's not blind faith. It's a prediction based on past success. You can't compare it to something like belief in god. I'm not really into philosophy, but I'm pretty sure someone has written something about infinity.
|
something you can not prove does not exist
Stop saying this If you don't have evidence of something means you don't have evidence. No further conclusions.For all we know pink unicorns that fart rainbows can exist and maybe we need to search harder. There is no reason to believe so however, and that's what we should talk. What reasons do we have to believe in God, not what evidence.
|
On July 01 2011 16:57 deathly rat wrote:
Whilst i agree that the early thinking that went into the formation of a scientific method was a philosophical exercise, I think it is clear that Science and Philosophy have taken 2 different paths. One on an empirical evidence based path and another on a path stemming from many leaps of internal logic and debate.
It is possible that you could call the whole of science a branch of philosophy, in that the formation of it's principles were rooted in philosophy, however it is clearly now a distictly different animal with not only differences in methodology and ideas, but also in society, conventions and institutions. To call philosophy and science the same thing, is to say that people are the same as fish.
This is also the reason scientists are no longer commonly philosophers and vica versa.
Again, philosophy is not just about throwing truisms and speculative metaphysics. The whole empirical based system of the natural sciences in itself is rooted in an internal logical system that is open to debate because it revolves around axioms that are not self-evident. I never said that science and philosophy are the same thing. Again, you are missing the entire point. As philosophy is, fundamentally, an inquiry into a question, the roots of science are open to philosophical inquiry. This is not to say that science should abandon its empirical based roots, because there is a good reason as to why they should adhere to it, but the model is not self-evident.
I suggest you try reading some Kuhn. He was a physicist and a philosopher of science. It's basically pointless trying to talk to someone about philosophy when they are ignorant of the entire field. My main interest doesn't lay in the Anglo-Analytic philosophical tradition either, so when it comes to the more direct connection between modern philosophy and modern natural science the other two guys in here will be more help in the long run.
|
On July 01 2011 20:13 ceaRshaf wrote:Stop saying this If you don't have evidence of something means you don't have evidence. No further conclusions.For all we know pink unicorns that fart rainbows can exist and maybe we need to search harder. There is no reason to believe so however, and that's what we should talk. What reasons do we have to believe in God, not what evidence.
If you don't have evidence, then you don't have evidence. If the lack of evidence is supposed to mean something other than the lack of evidence, then you are just engaging in wholesale double talk; 2 + 2 != 4. This is nonsense.
|
He pretends that something without evidence = it doesn't exist.
|
Then you argue why that argument has a flaw instead of saying something like no evidence != no evidence, which borders on schizophrenia.
|
The argument is the statement itself that doesn't make sense. Maybe my English made me phrase that wrong.
A detective that arrives at a murder scene doesn't say "there is no evidence, let's go home, there is no criminal".
|
In this example there's a murder, that's the difference!
I'd rather say that it's like a detective being told that someone was threatened in some place, without knowing who it was or where it was. Does it mean it didn't happen? No, but can't be sure it happened neither.
On a more serious note, I'd simply repeat what I said earlier about Karl Popper: if something cannot be verified, then it has nothing to do with science. A deist God has nothing to do with science, and it's a fallacy to apply scientific methods to verify its existance. Because even if there was a God, it couldn't be proven. The method used here to disprove the existence of God requires the possibility to observe the phenomenon in question. Would
The fallacy here is to apply science - a rigorous way of thinking - in a context where there is no rigor, no definition. Almost no context, actually.
About the EEG, an EEG is a tool, not a method (even though a method is a basic tool). You see to misunderstand the way I use the word "method". Refer to koreasilver's posts. Methods are different way to proceed that have been thought about and agreed upon in the pas by groups of thinkers, who work with different axioms depending on the ground of research. Even quantum and relative physics don't share the same axioms, I believe.
And no, I wasn't talking about singularities. I was talking about illogical statements. The way our logic works, I can't say I'm *here* and *there* at the same time. It does not make sense! Can you imagine an infinite space? Can you imagine nothingness? If so, you don't have a human mind. And a black screen isn't nothiness, since your conscience is observing it it. Nothingness is no object nor subject.
And there is no blind faith or far-seeing faith or well-lit faith. There is just faith, predicting something even though it is mereley a prediction.
If you weren't faithful, you wouldn't say that science will do it, you'll say that science could maybe do it, since the odds are hard to pin down on such questions. Even going as far as saying that science can probably do it is taking a big leap, a faithful leap if it wasn't after a deep historic study of how humans perceived the mysteries of the past.
Did they seem deeply illogical? Was having a blue sky as hard to imagine as the course of an object travelling towards the limits of space? If an object reaches the outer limits, where will it be? Why would it be in this place and not another? This is where the problem resides.
|
Finland612 Posts
I think its more like a detective arriving at a place where he heard alien creatures were eating people, only to find that the place is empty with no evidence of anything happening. He still doesn't give up and asks around and searches more for some evidence. Then by the combination of the claim being ridiculous and the complete lack of evidence, he concludes that it was all bullshit and goes away.
Tell me what other way you can use to verify the existence of something. How would you ever get anything out of a claim that can't be verified? It's like if I said gravity was actually tiny pink undetectable monkeys pulling stuff towards big objects. How does that change anything?
If a thing leaves any evidence in the universe, science can be applied to study it. If it doesn't leave any evidence, it might as well not exist, since you can never hear or see or feel anything the thing causes. Even if the scientific method can't prove things that can't be proven, it can still be used to determine whether falsifiable things are true or not. A god effecting our universe is falsifiable.
The only way science would not work would be if there were no natural laws of any kind. There would be no cause and effect, everything would be purely random and chaotic. Then you could not test anything. All observations would be meaningless and no results could be reproduced. Or if the place/thing/whatever did not exist, in which case all of the above would also be impossible.
If something has absolutely any effect on us we can study it. If it doesn't why would we even care or waste any thought on it? Why are you even arguing about science not being able to prove something that can never be proven to exist? What conclusion are you trying to reach? Because I don't really see how this affects anything in our actual reality.
I don't really know what the unveiled mysteries of our universe that science can't reveal you are talking about and it's impossible for me to argue against that, because you'll just add another one every time I told you how something could in theory be tested.
I'm so sick and tired of talking about faith, I hear about it from creationists all the time and they don't understand my position at all. I'm not sure what your definition of faith is, but I would define it as believing in something with no evidence or even when theres evidence against it. This is not the case now.
When you sit on your chair which you use everyday, are you scared that it'll collapse? No? Do you know how you came to that conclusion? You sit on it every day and it never shows any signs of breaking down any time soon. Now if I ask you will the chair collapse when you sit on it, you would say no like any sane person in a real life situation. Did you have faith in the chair? No you did not. You used past observations and testin(sitting on the chair) and gained some information and you used basic science to do so. Do you not understand that you can use past events to predict the future somewhat accurately?
When it comes to studying stuff out in the real world, no other method except the scientific method has been proven to determine facts. Even if we found a new and improved method, science itself would be used to test the new method. Now how can you say I am not basing my prediction on anything?
Your last paragraph doesn't make much sense. It depends on what they thought a blue sky was. Thinking that there are gods out there instead of stars seems deeply illogical to me. What does it matter if its hard to imagine what happens to an object when it reaches the edge of space? When and if we get to that point with a spaceship, we'll find out. It has nothing to do with imagination. We might not even have to travel there, some other discovery might show what is out there.
|
It's like talking to a wall.
My analogy with the detective is correct, and the only mistake i made was use the words "crime scene" instead to a "death scene". Please use your full neural capacity and understand the analogy.
Does a detective know it's a crime until he finds evidence of that? What if there are no evidences of a crime but the detective still BELIEVES it was and actually proves it. Why would he believe that if no evidences show it? Because we are humans, and belief is a characteristic.
Also, people had absolutley no reason to think the world is not flat. All they saw was flat land, how could they have seen the bigger picture. Yet here we are with the truth.
Belief leads to evidence.
|
On July 01 2011 21:25 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 16:57 deathly rat wrote:
Whilst i agree that the early thinking that went into the formation of a scientific method was a philosophical exercise, I think it is clear that Science and Philosophy have taken 2 different paths. One on an empirical evidence based path and another on a path stemming from many leaps of internal logic and debate.
It is possible that you could call the whole of science a branch of philosophy, in that the formation of it's principles were rooted in philosophy, however it is clearly now a distictly different animal with not only differences in methodology and ideas, but also in society, conventions and institutions. To call philosophy and science the same thing, is to say that people are the same as fish.
This is also the reason scientists are no longer commonly philosophers and vica versa. Again, philosophy is not just about throwing truisms and speculative metaphysics. The whole empirical based system of the natural sciences in itself is rooted in an internal logical system that is open to debate because it revolves around axioms that are not self-evident. I never said that science and philosophy are the same thing. Again, you are missing the entire point. As philosophy is, fundamentally, an inquiry into a question, the roots of science are open to philosophical inquiry. This is not to say that science should abandon its empirical based roots, because there is a good reason as to why they should adhere to it, but the model is not self-evident. I suggest you try reading some Kuhn. He was a physicist and a philosopher of science. It's basically pointless trying to talk to someone about philosophy when they are ignorant of the entire field. My main interest doesn't lay in the Anglo-Analytic philosophical tradition either, so when it comes to the more direct connection between modern philosophy and modern natural science the other two guys in here will be more help in the long run.
So, we have determined that science is an empirical evidence based pursuit, but although you have claimed what philosophy isn't, you've made no attempt to describe what it is and why it's methods are any better than observing and testing in a scientific way. I postulated that philosophy could be defined as making many leaps of internal logic to speculate on topics that are either without a definative answer or cannot currently be answered with any certainty at that point in time. Why do you think this postulation is wrong, and what would be your description of how philosophy is carried out?
Do not continue to tell me what philosophy isn't, and that scientific methods have inherent flaws (without properly discussing these, I read up a bit about Kuhn, and his ideas about the impossiblity of objectivity in science are easily countered)
I have often read some philosophy on this or that when people have tried to justify their points with authoratative references, but I have never read anything that has caused me to think that anything but a purely scientific analysis of a problem is the best way to derive conclusions. Every statement in a philosophical discourse which is stated without emprical evidence offends my every fibre.
You tell me I am ignorant of your sacred texts as a preacher claims my ignorance of biblical minutia, but I don't need to be expert in these things to maintain my view and argument because I reject the fundamental process by which you are deriving conclusions.
|
I and other posters in this thread have already answered your questions multiple times, and at this point it's just utterly pointless to continue a discussion with you. I imagine it is as fruitless an endeavor for theoretical physicist to talk about string theory with someone who hasn't put any effort into becoming acquainted with at least the basics of the discipline.
As for your positivism, I'll just simplify the main reason why logical positivism is dead. As you say:
The only meaningful (or in your case, "offensive) statements are empirically verifiable.
However, the statement "the only meaningful (inoffensive) statement is empirically verifiable" cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, the statement "the only meaningful (inoffensive) statement is empirically verifiable" is not meaningful and is, under your own method, offensive.
This is not to say that verifiable statements aren't meaningful, but you can't say only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful. There can be meaningful statements beyond the what is empirically verifiable. This is a very simplicated version of the argument.
Your attitude to the discipline just kinda shows why people need to actually read more instead of claiming they know better when they don't have a goddamned clue about what they're talking about. I don't really find it any different from when a creationist would go about "disproving" evolution when they don't even understand the basics of it. It's sad, and after some time, it doesn't even really deserve our patience.
|
|
|
We're going around in circles, so from now let's stick to the main points.
1) You believe I'm a male, I could be a female. The way I write is not proof, it's a clue. Belief is as simple as that.
Now, the definition of faith is "a confident belief". We could say that you have faith in science, and faith in your own opinion since you're declaring being able to predict the future even though I seriously doubt that you put the necessary effort and have the necessary hisorical knowledge to really examinate and compare past and present interrogations. You're assuming things despite your position as a defender of the universal scientific method (again, what is precisely that method? Is it induction, or deduction, or abduction? Is it exmerimental verification?).
2) Again, a god affecting our universe is in theory falsiable (and I am NOT talking about a theist God but since you bring the subject back...). However, it requires observation, which some scientists do, and this is a constant struggle between the religious crowds who brings "proofs" and the scientific crowd who disproves them. We can therefore assume that theist Gods don't exist. But as long as the religious crowd claims to hold proofs, the debate and the research remain open.
3) So we seem to agree, if something cannot be proven nor disproven empirically (a deist God exists, or "I am happy"), NOT believing it AND believing it are both beliefs, since based on no evidence whatsoever.
What does this conclusion affect? Well, it underlines how passionate and irrational you are, ironically. You have said many irrigorous statements in this debate while trying to defend a strictly rational position, now the aliens, the spaceship going to outer space, or the "extraordinary proof".
But more importantly, it shows that people have faith in science like they had faith in religion in the past. Most of the scientific topics are quite abstruse for the public, and even though they understand very little of it, they trust it with their life. This is faith! Driven by ignorance with no evidence whatsoever. You know, people assuming things. This doesn't even have anything to do with sience itself, but rather with the image people have of it.
4) You have a rather intriguing definition of science. Believing that I have a solid chair is just logic, not science. And I don't know that it won't break, I assume it won't. Sometimes I'm wrong and I hurt my butt.
Basing yourself on something doesn't mean anything. Magicians used to predict the future, based on intestines or birds. It's not that different from you basing yourself on a vague knowledge (unless you have a PhD in epistemology and history). You're using intuition and rumors, which don't seem to fit your "scientific method".
5) It's not hard to imagine the universe, it's impossible the way our brain functions. But if you think I'm wrong, you can just draw a picture and post it!
To conclude, I'd say that my goal is just to unveil that science is not a monolithic movement that holds the power to attain absolute truth. And while doing that, I just wanted to show how some people "follow" "science" much like people followed prophets, with little actual precise knowledge about epistemology or science history, and even with little knowledge about science itself.
In short, how people have faith not only in Jesus, but also in science, to a certain extent.
The fact that I see no difference between your vague, passionate and stubborn attitude and the behaviour of religious people is quite significant in the first place.
|
I also just thought about a fun game we can do together to illustrate koreasilver's point.
I know that something exists.
I know, that I, as an undefined being, exist.
Anything else is fundamentally a belief and cannot be empirically verified!
What am I? A human being? What is a human being, where does my being start and where does it end? What is my conscience? How can I be sure that others perceive the world the way I do? How can I be sure that there are others similar to me in the first place?
This was the funny conspiracy part.
However, solipsism (basically being doubtful about the existance of anything outside of you own conscience) does raise some interesting points.
Let's observate and run a few experiments!
Let's sleep,
Take a dose of LSD,
Take a dose of Salvinorin A,
Let's enter a coma,
Let's become schyzophrenic.
Such experiences are very interesting as they usually change the world and its logic as a whole. You can dream of living in a V-shaped world with colors that don't exist and a made up past, not realizing that you are dreaming. Sometimes, you can even dream that you dream, yo dawg!
The question is: if the world can change altogether while you become absolutely certain that it has been that way forever and that everything is normal... then how can you be empirically sure of anything apart from existing?
Of course, this doesn't go very far, but it does show that we base everything we think and everything we know on a few fundamental axioms: I exist as a human being among other human beings who share this reality with me, there are dreams and there is a real world, and this is the real world! The world you're in, awake or sleeping or tripping, is always reality, after all. When you wake up, you consider your past state as unreal, just like you do when you fall asleep (even though the latter cas is pretty rare I believe!).
Just to put things into perspective while underlining the omnipresence of axioms in our thinking process.
Edit: grammar.
|
Here's how I see it:
A. God does exist. B. The Son of Man is not mortal. C. Life has inherent meaning.
You are right that a leap of faith is required. Either follow Nietzsche and make up your own "truth" or try to inform your conscience until you find the Truth.
|
On July 02 2011 10:25 Kukaracha wrote:
I also just thought about a fun game we can do together to illustrate koreasilver's point.
I know that something exists.
I know, that I, as an undefined being, exist.
Anything else is fundamentally a belief and cannot be empirically verified!
What am I? A human being? What is a human being, where does my being start and when does it end? What is my conscience? How can I be sure that others perceive the world the way I do? How can I be sure that there are others similar to me in the first place?
This was the funny conspiracy part.
However, solipsism (basically being doubtful about the existance of anything outside of you own conscience) does raise some interesting points.
Let's observate and run a few experiments!
Let's sleep,
Take a dose of LSD,
Take a dose of Salvinorin A,
Let's enter a coma,
Let's become schyzophrenic.
Such experiences are very interesting as they usually change the world and its logic as a whole. You can dream of living in a V-shaped world with colors that don't exist and a made up past, not realizing that you are dreaming. Sometimes, you can even dream that you dream, yo dawg!
The question is: if the world can change altogether while you become absolutely certain that it has been that way forever and that everything is normal... then how can you be empirically sure of anything apart from existing?
Of course, this doesn't go very far, but it does show that we base everything we think and everything we know on a few fundamental axioms: I exists as a human being among other human beings who share this reality with me, there are dreams and there is a real world, and this is the real world! The world you're in, awake or sleeping or tripping, is always reality, after all. When you wake up, you consider your past state as unreal, just like you do when you fall asleep (even though the latter cas is pretty rare I believe!).
Just to put things into perspective while underlining the omnipresence of axioms in our thinking process.
Mmhmm this is why the Good is more True than empiricism. Faith is inevitable so interpretation of all perception is an ethical question.
|
Finland612 Posts
1. Then everyone has faith in everything, except their own existance, since nothing can not be known for sure. I would assume you are male because an overwhelming majority in this site is male. If there was a box with a hundred balls and they were all white except for a single black one and you asked me which color ball you were going to take at random I would say most probably the white one. This is the point where you start screaming that I'm an irrational retard as you are doing now.
Do I wear a bulletproof vest everytime I go outside incase someone shoots me? No I don't, because it's so unlikely to happen it would be dumb for me to waste any energy on that happening. I only ever claimed science is the most likely candidate at this very moment and since you haven't answered to this except by telling me it's an assumption all the time. I know it's not completely certain and that does not matter. You know one of the first steps in the scientific method is to make a hypothesis which is basically an educated guess and after that you test it how it works.
You still don't understand the scientific method at all. It's not a single method, why is it supposed to be one? It's just a term used for describing a number of methods for investigating and getting as close as possible to the truth and it works.
2. No one is putting any serious effort to the existance of god anymore, because all the proofs scientists are offered is basically the same old shit over and over again.
3. Yes now I understand I've been trusting in science even when it hasn't achieved anything. The scientific method has not achieved absolutely anything in this world and scientists are actually NWO overlords who abuse the unknowing publics faith in science.
Are you telling me you don't trust anything the scientific community has made?
Do you know that you can go study science, if you want to and challenge any claim any scientist makes? New discoveries are rewarded. The whole point of peer review is getting reliable information. If you have a way that produces more results than any other way we have thought of, then why the fuck should we not use the way that gives the best results? And if you say that there is a better way to investigate things in nature than the scientific method, then please share this great discovery with the rest of the world and advance humanity.
Should you trust science blindly? No. Do I trust in science blindly? No I don't. You are basing your whole faith arguement in your own strawman. I said that it's more likely science will gives us answers rather than belief in god, because when you believe in god you already stop looking for answers. Now you took this and twisted it into "Science will answer even the things that can not be answered. All hail Einstein."
4. You finally said it. It's just logic. How do you think the scientific method works? Science is basically using logic. And why do you assume the chair doesn't break? Because it's reasonable to do so and guessing based on evidence is not the same as guessing without anything. Very rarely will the chair break and by looking at the evidence you save yourself the trouble of checking the chair thoroughly every time before you sit on it.
The reason why we use science for predicting things instead pig intestines is because it is more reliable. It is not perfect, but it does give better results. Just look at meteorologists predicting weather, they mostly get it right and the prediction is more reliable when it's on a shorter time frame. What do you think they are using to make those predictions? You could just guess at random what the weather will be tomorrow and it'll be correct at sometimes, does this mean we should change to guessing at random, because science is not always certain?
5. I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. I can't imagine the shape of the universe so science is wrong? Or that because we can't imagine the shape of the universe so we can never find out what it's shape truly is?
To conclude, I'd say that my goal is just to unveil that science is not a monolithic movement that holds the power to attain absolute truth. And while doing that, I just wanted to show how some people "follow" "science" much like people followed prophets, with little actual precise knowledge about epistemology or science history, and even with little knowledge about science itself.
In short, how people have faith not only in Jesus, but also in science, to a certain extent.
Science can not reach absolute truth and neither can we, because it's impossible to be sure of your surroundings. I have never claimed that science isn't completely infallible. Holy fuck this is so frustrating to try and explain to you that trusting in something that gives better results over anything else we have would be the smartest thing to do. What is your obsession with something either having to give the absolute truth or else it is as worthless as religion?
|
Finland612 Posts
On July 02 2011 10:25 Kukaracha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I also just thought about a fun game we can do together to illustrate koreasilver's point.
I know that something exists.
I know, that I, as an undefined being, exist.
Anything else is fundamentally a belief and cannot be empirically verified!
What am I? A human being? What is a human being, where does my being start and where does it end? What is my conscience? How can I be sure that others perceive the world the way I do? How can I be sure that there are others similar to me in the first place?
This was the funny conspiracy part.
However, solipsism (basically being doubtful about the existance of anything outside of you own conscience) does raise some interesting points.
Let's observate and run a few experiments!
Let's sleep,
Take a dose of LSD,
Take a dose of Salvinorin A,
Let's enter a coma,
Let's become schyzophrenic.
Such experiences are very interesting as they usually change the world and its logic as a whole. You can dream of living in a V-shaped world with colors that don't exist and a made up past, not realizing that you are dreaming. Sometimes, you can even dream that you dream, yo dawg!
The question is: if the world can change altogether while you become absolutely certain that it has been that way forever and that everything is normal... then how can you be empirically sure of anything apart from existing?
Of course, this doesn't go very far, but it does show that we base everything we think and everything we know on a few fundamental axioms: I exist as a human being among other human beings who share this reality with me, there are dreams and there is a real world, and this is the real world! The world you're in, awake or sleeping or tripping, is always reality, after all. When you wake up, you consider your past state as unreal, just like you do when you fall asleep (even though the latter cas is pretty rare I believe!).
Just to put things into perspective while underlining the omnipresence of axioms in our thinking process.
Edit: grammar.
You can be empirically sure of what you are seeing, even if it is an illusion. Will you ever know that you are not actually in the matrix? Nope.
So when you have two choices
a) worry about reality being fake and do nothing, since you will never be able to know.
b) live your life as you would if you were sure the world is real, you might as well, because you can never know if the world is real or not.
You can talk to other human beings and establish things that you all perceive. Now that you've established some things and discovered some causes and effects, you can start manipulating the world around you to do stuff you want. As long as there is causality and the laws of logic apply to the illusionary world, you can still use the scientific method there.
|
On July 02 2011 09:48 koreasilver wrote:
I and other posters in this thread have already answered your questions multiple times, and at this point it's just utterly pointless to continue a discussion with you. I imagine it is as fruitless an endeavor for theoretical physicist to talk about string theory with someone who hasn't put any effort into becoming acquainted with at least the basics of the discipline.
As for your positivism, I'll just simplify the main reason why logical positivism is dead. As you say:
The only meaningful (or in your case, "offensive) statements are empirically verifiable.
However, the statement "the only meaningful (inoffensive) statement is empirically verifiable" cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, the statement "the only meaningful (inoffensive) statement is empirically verifiable" is not meaningful and is, under your own method, offensive.
This is not to say that verifiable statements aren't meaningful, but you can't say only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful. There can be meaningful statements beyond the what is empirically verifiable. This is a very simplicated version of the argument.
Your attitude to the discipline just kinda shows why people need to actually read more instead of claiming they know better when they don't have a goddamned clue about what they're talking about. I don't really find it any different from when a creationist would go about "disproving" evolution when they don't even understand the basics of it. It's sad, and after some time, it doesn't even really deserve our patience.
You have not addressed the direct question that I asked, which was for you to explain a method of deriving meaningful conclusions about the world which is not based upon empirical evidence. If you have please simply quote it for my stupid ignorance.
As for your haughty reliance on authoratative references and your own sacred texts, I find it pathetic and reductive. Speak and think for yourself. If this is beyond you, or I'm just too stupid to be engaged in this debate then just go back to playing some SC2.
Your modus operandi seems merely to try and undermine and spread doubt at any possible point, which I find unilluminating.
|
It's extremely underwhelming to read tedious arguments about I believe in this and you're wrong and here's 8 paragraphs why without actually addressing what you said directly. It's better to write one line and argue what you intend then fourteen pages of fluff.
Addressing the original post: Many philosophical musings, theories or idealogys have conclusions. I'm unsure what that was supposed to mean. But if you can't find a conclusion in a philosophical argument then you should make you're own that suits you.
the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
There's nothing wrong with this statement. It is factual and unbias'd. It is evidenced by emperical data and cannot be refuted by faith arguments. While it is certainly nicer for the faith communities to have a preset goal by someone wiser than them, I prefer to set my own. It doesn't bother me that I am not born with purpose. I choose my own.
I choose to reproduce and continue our species. I choose to contribute and improve our civilisation. No one else, even inherent biological wiring decides that for me. Though ... damn, I just realized I was trying to think around point C and I can't.
Life does have an inherent meaning. We are to reproduce. It's in our genetics to do so. If you can think of nothing further, then at least accept that the survival of our species is our purpose. Or reduced:
Life's purpose is to survive.
|
1) You are right, our world is based on a certain set of basic beliefs we cannot verify. However, no one is always as accurate as taking this into account every time they say something, so the use of the word faith in this case seems redundant.
What I adressed is that you are not using the "scientific method", you're just using intuition, which is fine, really, but it's not an "educated guess". Maybe you do have a PhD in scientific history, but I really doubt so. So when you claim with confidence that science will manage to attain what I held as absolute mysteries (the concepts of eternity, infinity, the shape of the universe, and such), you are NOT using the "scientific method', you are using simple LOGIC and not even rigorous logic as it is probably a result of your INTUITION since you probably did not do the necessary research to make such claims.
By the way... so if, you agree that the "scientific method" is really just a set of methods, I wonder, do you really believe that those sciences share a common vague modus operandi, a real method? Because I came to see that what we call a "scientific method" does not apply for sociology, or psychology, and very loosely to astronomy, meteorology, or sismology.
So, if you ever wanted to use a "scientific method" to determine if you need a bulletproof vest to leave your home safely, wouldn't you use psychology and sociology? But then again, if you believe there truly is a scientific method, those aren't sciences! So, do you not believe that those two are sciences? And if they're not, then we already see two disciplines (or at least sociology, psychology being sometimes a joke, I think) who do a pretty good job at giving us some decent informations about the world, without being sciences!
2) I still see scientific studies on the subject, at least I recall seeing a few in the past years...
3) A) You ARE trusting science blindly, as I highly doubt that you are well versed not only on botanics, but in physics, chemistry, mathematics, sociology, psychology, astrology, and so on. You claim that you have seen results, but what kind of results? Has science made life better? This is a complex question, so if your answer is immediately "no", you are being faithful.
Did religion mainly aim to explain physical phenomenons? No. Religion mostly tries to give a meaning to life. Did religion make life better? It did sometimes, I guess. Can we diabolize it? We could, but we would be forced to diabolize science, you know, after seeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Painlevé's filmed experiments on living beings, the unit 751 of Kizu, gas chambers, and the list goes on.
Again, when you answer to such questions, you are likely yo have a readymade idea that does not really follow the rigorous "scientific method".
"But there is evidence science works!" Well, peasants thought that cathedrals were a good evidence that their king had a divine right to rule. "Things in general" is not evidence. Maybe you are well versed in many sciences, but does that mean that science in general is flawless? And does that mean that any individual trusting science necessarily has an extensive knowledge of what he supports?
B) Science can explain many things, and as you said it is the best tool to analyze the way the world works. However, is it the best tool to determine what's right from what's wrong? Will science give me an answer if I ask something like "should I have sex with my children"?
You could either refer to:
- Psychology, but then there is no "scientific method", it's just a term that regroups the immense variety of methods used by all sciences
- Or else psychology isn't a science, and you refer to any other sciences, that will basically say that it's OK as long as I don't generate a pregnancy.
Other more metaphysical questions like "What should I do?" or "Who should I be?" can obviously not be answered by science; thus my position, saying that science has its own domain of studies, and is not a general way to attain truth. Thinking that science provides answers for everything is a faithful and in my opinion foolish thinking.
And NO, believing in god does not stop people from looking from truth. It DOES NOT make you believe in fairies, it is in fact not contradictory with science in general. I've seen deist scientists. Rousseau, one of the most brilliant thinkers of his time, much more rigorous and philosophical than Voltaire who was mainly an ideologist, was a deist for example. And he probably looked more for answers than anyone here!
4) Science has a logical approach of things, like philosophy and many other things. I don't really see your point, as science has nothing to do with logical assumptions which fill our everyday lives. Don't confuse science and logic, and don't think science has the monopoly of logic.
5) Science does not give better results than everything else. In fact, science has nothing to do with the most valuable pieces of knowledge I have. Science has contributed very little into directly shaping me, in comparison with other things like tradition, philosophy, or even litterature.
And I believe it is the same for you. What taught you not to rape people in the streets? Your parents, probably...
And no, you can't be empirically sure of what you're seeing, since you could be blind and still know there is a pillar in front of you. You can however be empirically sure that you see what you see. Whether it is true or not, it cannot be answered, and it does not really matter apart from showing that we have an axiomatic perception of things.
To deathly rat: philosophy is the critical, rational, systematic and rigorous analysis of questions regarding life, language, humanity, morality, using the definition of concepts which are afterward used as common tools which can in turn be used as a ground for a common reflexion, as long as those participating are aware of said concepts. There is no universal method though, as philosophy gave birth to many schools, which had their own way to proceed.
I already adressed above the reasons why science isn't the universal answer for any question in the world. Science only gives factual answers in the concerned domains (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) and does not adress (should not adress) ethical or metaphysical questions among which is the existance of God, the purpose of life, the notions of good and evil, or any complex question that doesn't lie on immediate facts but on a variety of concepts. However, philosophy and science don't exclude each other and, as said earlier, there have been many scientists who were also philosophers, and the other way around.
When you say that the difference between philosophy and science are empirical observations... well, most of modern science is based on empirical observations. Plato did define the concept of a world of ideas, but this was about 2300 years ago. What philosophers do is arrange those concepts in categories, or develop ideological ideas that have little to do with experience. But ideologies are usually easily identified and rarely shown as absolute truths.
|
I agree with you, but the question about the existence of a god and the creation of the universe often takes place about science. The Christian church has for centuries recognised that the general popluation having a scientific understanding of the world disempowers them and stands contradictory to their world view. It's for this reason that they constantly try to undermine scientific education across the world.
There are obvious overlaps between philosophy and science. In most cases science acts as witness providing the information, whilst philosophical thinking can debate the ethical ramifications.
However the point I was debating with koreasilver was the method of discovering things about the world we live in. I put it to you that if you grew up entirely in a locked room you could come up with many ideas about the world outside the room. You could create a scenario in which there was no "outside world", or you might say there are just other rooms like the one you are in, or you might have another idea. It would all be an interesting philosophical exercise, but the point is that all of these ideas would be equally valid. In order to find out what was actually out there you would have to either go outside to observe or start to collect secondary evidence. This is why science is the method for discovering how the universe works and not philosophy.
|
I'll respond to your conclusions:
A. god does not exist
True, but he exists in our minds. I was watching an experiment where scientists use magnets to cause people to have visions related to god. Some saw hell, some saw heaven. The 6th sense of the brain causes us to believe there is a higher being, and religions are created because of this.
B. Man is mortal
Who cares? If man wasn't mortal then flash would win all starcraft tourneys for the rest of the world. Its good. It makes things matter, because we dont have unlimited time.
C. Life has no inherant meaning.
That's what is so great. We can choose the meaning. Most people do what makes them happy
Think rationally, but optimistically
|
Finland612 Posts
Wow I thought this thread was dead. This will be my last post in this thread, I'll read your reply to it, but I'm not going to write an answer.
1. A common vague modus operandi would be using perception and logic to study the world I guess. Using both of those efficiently leads to the scientific method. It's not only limited to a person physically observing something. For example the orbit of Pluto takes close to 250 years to make one round. We have never seen it make one round, but we can still calculate that this is what will happen.
Because I came to see that what we call a "scientific method" does not apply for sociology, or psychology, and very loosely to astronomy, meteorology, or sismology.
I don't even know what to say to that. Scientific method does not apply to sociology or psychology? Having studied psychology quite a bit I can assure you that the scientific method is applied to any serious experiment and most experiments have produced legit information.
So, if you ever wanted to use a "scientific method" to determine if you need a bulletproof vest to leave your home safely, wouldn't you use psychology and sociology?
1. Should I wear a bulletproof vest outside? (Question)
2. Look at statistics, observe the outside. How likely is it that a shooting will occur? (Now next I would normally have to make an experiment, however I already have the data(statistics) so I just have to analyze it. Oh look, according to the statistics 95% of the people who go out after 24:00 get shot.)
3. Wear a bulletproof vest at night as you are likely to be shot. (publish results)
4. Other people check it for mistakes repeatedly and don't find anything
5. What do you know, the scientific method brought us something useful in the field of sociology.
Just because we can't pinpoint everything in human behaviour does not mean the scientific method is inherently broken, human brains haven't been studied enough and our current technology limits us in the department. That's the only reason psychology or sociology aren't called hard sciences.
Funnily enough all the other branches of science you mentioned also use the scientific method when studying things that fall under their area.
2. After a quick google search, I couldn't find anything other than christian propaganda.
3. a) I don't know what your standards are for well-versed, but I have a good basic understanding various sciences, that allows me to understand the reasoning behind a claim. Or if I at first don't understand something, I can study it a bit further. I know this is some sort of a dumb trick question, since science has brought you the luxurious technology that allows your current lifestyle and if I said that and used technology as an example, I'd just get some useless comment back.
Uh, you're comparing maybe improving someones life by making them believe in god to improving the lives of the vast majority of humans. Sure technology gained through science can be used for "evil" purposes, but the pros out weigh the cons so much, it would be dumb not to use it.
Who said science was flawless? There's always uncertainty in everything. I don't care, if some hillbilly redneck doesn't know why something happens, but knows that it happens. I don't take claims that could change my life on faith.
b) Depends on how you define right and wrong. Let's say right is everything that benefits the society and wrong is everything that hurts the society. The choices you offer are limited and psychology might not necessarily be the only field that would apply to this scenario.
- Let's say someone studied the effects of incest on our society. A good choice to start would be to look at statistics. The scientist looks at the data and after analyzing it concludes that people that were inbred lived an average of 10 years less than other people. Then he studies inbreeding with his doctor friend and they end up finding out that inbred people have less telomeres.
- So basically yes, it is ok if two consenting adults have sex as long as they don't conceive. Any objection to this would be on emotional grounds i.e. that disgusts me so it is wrong.
You don't use science to really do anything other than get a result and then see what you can do with that result.
Questions like "What should I do?" are always loaded. You are presuming that you have to do something. There is no evidence of an ultimate purpose and this kind of goes back to arguing about god. If you want to live, you should do things that keep you alive, how do you know how to stay alive in various situations? This is where science steps in. The results produced by the scientific method could be used to tell you what you need to do to reach your goal.
I meant that you stop looking for answers for the questions your belief already answered. Like if you truly believed the sun is actually dragged up there by a giant scarab every morning, you would not try to explain why the sun goes up every day. It's just a simple case of
a) doing nothing to get an answer
b) doing something to get an answer
4) Science doesn't have a monopoly on logic. Science is just an extension of it, that is why most of the examples I use sound like normal logic to you.
5) ... yes it does when you are trying to study the natural world and gain reliable information. For other vague and abstract things, maybe. You see, science is just a way of getting a good aswer for a question. If a certain question was significant to you and we found out that the real answer was not the thing you were expecting, it will shape you as a person.
I wonder what kind of knowledge you hold valuable. As for science shaping you, that's just incredibly vague on so many levels. It's really a matter of how you look at it, it's the same problem when answering metaphysical questions through science. If a person just sat at home and played WoW 24/7, would science have shapen him because it produced the computer the person uses?
As for things like what taught me to not rape on the streets? I did. It's not really hard when you know that crimes are punishable and things that hurt others is not something you want to do.
Damn what a wall of text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
