|
On July 14 2010 07:56 Pandain wrote:
Yup, that's why theres so many different religious sects all claiming to hold the onne absolute truth. Given proof that God exists, the question then becomes, which religion is right? Then the objective areas of morality begin to form basic concepts of good and evil and in between.
And that's where I plug in the technical vs dogmatic argument. Dogmatic representatives would back out so far as to indicate their supposition is probable thus you should take it into consideration anyway, even if you do not assign the truth value to it yet.
This is a big problem. People filter information after they assimilate it. You will believe any fake info until you take rational, logical and empirical steps to verify it. That's how the brain works.
So what do we do to sort out the right version of everyone's answer to "What is your purpose in life?".
|
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote:
I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
I don't know.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Nothing lasts..
What are your most important values ?
Treat other people like you want to be treated yourself.
What is good and what is evil ?
Two words.
What is Wisdom ?
Using you knowledge of things wisely.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
That's all I got.
|
On July 14 2010 08:29 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:17 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught. But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion. It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position. Allow me to take your statement as an example: "What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is. I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before.
Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties.
Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing).
What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics.
Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge.
Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing.
Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real.
This idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
|
What is the point of life ?
obv. creating threads discussing the meaning of life
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Nothing
What are your most important values ?
open-mindedness
What is good and what is evil ?
relative coordinates in a given coordinate system of morality.
What is Wisdom ?
knowing that you know nothing.
|
What is worse?
Poll: Worse: Ayn Rand or Moral Relativism?Ayn Rand (10) 50% Moral Relativism (10) 50% 20 total votes Your vote: Worse: Ayn Rand or Moral Relativism? (Vote): Ayn Rand
(Vote): Moral Relativism
|
Kant is the most important philosopher because he reconciled our conception of truth to include both the rational and empirical.
Poll: Kant was the most important?No (8) 73% Yes (3) 27% 11 total votes Your vote: Kant was the most important? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
Someone on the internets want's my opines I must answers!
What is the point of life ? n/a
What can bring you lasting happiness ? chemical imbalance in brain until pleasure receptors burn out.
What are your most important values ? Wat? Do you mean what I respect most in others? Do you mean what I think are the most important values for people to have? Adaptability. Broad sweeping generalizations are never true. Initiative, you gotta try. Don't be too extreme?
What is good and what is evil ? I don't believe that good and evil exist. I think that we as people made up the two terms and then made two bins and started throwing ideas into them. However I have noticed that what is generally considered good allows civilization to survive, and what is not (stealing, murder) is usually considered evil.
What is Wisdom ? Wat? Ok so a wise person would be one who... well this is hard to define. Perhaps a wise man is simply one who can think about things critically. He tries to be rational.
|
On July 14 2010 09:21 ChoboCop wrote:
Kant is the most important philosopher because he reconciled our conception of truth to include both the rational and empirical.
He also has a steeple 
edit:
aghh wtf I clicked edit not quote! 
|
What is the point of life ? To experience, die, comeback, experience again, die again, and be able to benefit from the experience in the next stage of life after about 3-15 times. so the final death in this sphere just starts the same game in a more advanced one. it is a spiral, with an end that is evolving kind of. like in every part of it self. (nothing i believe in, i am not religious. i know that somehow/experience of my life regarding philosophy and researched science, but you dont have to believe me...:p )
What can bring you lasting happiness ? based on human psychic response and behavior, moments strengthen itself, so try to low value(=ignore) bad times and high value good times. if you feel really bad, live it, that makes you even feel good times more active. but actively try to get out, just dont feel bad if it doesn't effect that fast. like that you can live on an up spiral of happiness. you have to be in control of yourself to get that working.. sadly :p
What are your most important values ? Having energy is important. If you have energy you can give and even can get more in return. moral values is something standard i wont discuss that much.
What is good and what is evil ? the answere is, trying to reach a moral optimum and beeing aware of a paradox field of decision. 2 sides of a war for examle this is a simple question since the other is evil and the same side is good. if you watch it from far, good is to end the conflict without moral treasure get hurt. evil would be to strenghten both sides that much the conflict never ends and benefit from it. moral paradox would be, if the artificial lenghtened war between 2 countrys stables world power so there is no world war. you should be avoiding that situation nor getting into it, but if you are in, sometimes there is only a bad choice and a worse. if you know that you can avoid those situations in advance. at least, try. so far the concept of good and evil in a box.
What is Wisdom ?
To have developed a standard by experience that high, you can never reach it and you know it.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
Oh, thats not personal, thats as objective as it can get. There is no truth to be proven, but a truth to be demanded. There is the objective truth out there but it is impossible to prove if you have it or not, nor to falsify.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
Me/mine. because i like to think. i just consume philosophic exchange to find my own ideas again or get inspired. last one i remember maybe was popper. love his calm voice.
[edit] some of my ideas into it:
atheism is just another dogmatic religion, just without the powers you can get for free, out of believing.
Believing is for losers, i decided to know. It is stronger. but stay flexible with your thinking, grants a stable standpoint.
Hence there is no truth to be known by a human, ever, decide what is truth for you.
There are as many religions/ways of thinking and philosophy as there are human beeing. Let them be. I would design a way of thinking for every person based on his demands.
mainstreams only fit good on the minority of individuals.
|
On July 14 2010 08:59 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:29 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:17 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught. But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion. It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position. Allow me to take your statement as an example: "What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is. I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me. My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
|
On July 14 2010 09:36 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
What can bring you lasting happiness ? chemical imbalance in brain until pleasure receptors burn out.
Wait, what? Those burn out? I thought they were reconfigured to match the most common excitator found.
|
Ayn Rand as a writer is terrific, if you can read through all of the heavy language, her books WE and Atlas struggled are very well written and they do each underwrite the societies moral opinions of the times written.
|
On July 14 2010 10:54 mrproper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 09:36 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
What can bring you lasting happiness ? chemical imbalance in brain until pleasure receptors burn out.
Wait, what? Those burn out? I thought they were reconfigured to match the most common excitator found.
I think they burned out in some lab rats when humans placed some electrodes in a rats brain near what they thought was the pleasure center and then allowed the rat to stimulate it by pressing a button. Of course it's entirely possible the rat just fried the rest of his brain too.
|
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote:
What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
I dunno jack about philosophy but here goes my attempt~
1) Point of life = death. Life itself is a journey to reach a point where you die so new life can start.
2) Important values = love, sense of fellowship, solidarity
3) Good/Evil = Good = lack of evil and Evil = lack of good. To define that shit my head would explode
4) Wisdom = The opposite of intelligence. Intelligence is where you hypothesize and predict the outcomes of problems/situations, but I like to think wisdom is having certainty but doesn't have anything to do with being smart.
|
There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject.
|
What is the point of life ?= Just to get through it without killing yourself and still being able to respect yourself on your death bed.
What can bring you lasting happiness?= That can't happen. You can have moments were you are happy, and alot of stuff brings me moments of joy. Lasting happiness however would be heaven, and I don't think that can be found in this life ^^
What are your most important values?= personal responsibility. I just want to handle my business at all times, and not let my family/friends down.
What is good and what is evil?= Well I think there really is no good or evil. Just whatever morality society has placed on us. So I guess my morality is based on judeo christian beliefs.
What is Wisdom? To accept the fact that you don't know everything, but never stop tying to learn.
|
"would the world be a better place if people used the search function?"
|
What is the point of life?
The point of life, in a biological sense is the continuation there of.
Apart from that, what meaning or point life may have is subjective.
What can bring you lasting happiness?
Lasting happiness would be meaningless as it is lasting. It is the gradient of emotions that gives them meaning.
What are your most important values?
To cherish life, value wisdom and knowledge and respect others. I could list more but these are overarching.
What is good and what is evil?
Nothing but words and labels.
What is Wisdom?
The definition I prefer is that it consists of the best usage of knowledge.
Concerning epistemology, I’m a methodological naturalist. Apart from this though I have no doctrines or philosophers I prefer; I may be somewhat of an armchair philosopher myself, albeit I am far from well versed enough to give an honest opinion apart from that.
|
real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly.
real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them.
"the only proof of strength is strength manifested" ????? (guess who said this young phil students)
On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
they are not "subjective"... they do however lead to antimonies whereby two sides can both be proven correct. Kant showed us this and used "antimony" to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it.
Kant dealt with 4 main antimonies.. Each of these has an equally plausible YES and NO answer.
1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time (is the universe infinite?)
2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist),
3. the problem of free will in relation to universal causality (is there "free will"?)
4. the existence of a necessary being (does "God" exist)
Each of these has a thesis that contradicts an antithesis.
For example: in the First Antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by "successive synthesis" -- yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been "empty time" out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason. Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless.
This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. These contradictions are inherent in reason when it is applied to the world as it is in itself, independently of our perceptions of it (this has to do with the distinction between phenomena and noumena). Kant's goal in his critical philosophy was to identify what claims we are and are not justified in making, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.
this work had tremendous influence on Wittgenstein who would go on to pronounce that "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent"
|
Is anyone here pursuing graduate study in philosophy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
