|
What is the point of life ?
The Pursuit of Happiness
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Hmm, Lasting doesn't make any sense to me since we all die. I suppose the first step would be indefinite lifespan? But then more problems arise with that.
What are your most important values ?
Maslow's Pyramid lol. Totally subjective, I'd suppose they can be bent depending on your first two answers.
What is good and what is evil ?
This is a matter of perspective. Many do evil with good intentions and vice versa. With limited information this can't be anything but subjective. Furthermore limited information is at the core of the human condition imo.
What is Wisdom ?
Well documented information.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
Kant, Wittgenstein, Camus
|
On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote: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) Show nested quote +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)
I have learned something from this post. This thread is now valid.
|
On July 14 2010 16:02 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Is anyone here pursuing graduate study in philosophy?
Here.
|
What is the point of life ?
Reproduce and survive... comfortably 
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
I don't think anyone can have lasting happiness. I think that happiness is an emotion that you experience at a given point of time. I don't think anyone can constantly be happy at all moments. You have happy moments, sad moments, neutral moments... I would say try to make as many happy moments as possible and you achieve this either through pleasure, satisfaction from work or hobby and fulfillment of one's own goals and many other things that I'm sure are missing.
What are your most important values ?
Family, education, empathy and pleasure.
What is good and what is evil ?
Subjective... completely.
What is Wisdom ?
Experience combined with intellect.
|
On July 14 2010 16:18 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote: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) I have learned something from this post. This thread is now valid.
omninmo forgot to use quotes where appropriate.
edit - wrong name 
|
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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.
I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
|
Here is my take on the questions posed by the OP
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote:
What is the point of life ?
Everyone decides what the point of their own life will be. In general objective terms there is no point to life, just as there is no point to stars or rocks or space, these things just exist. Not everything has to have a point.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Nothing can bring you lasting happiness, the only way we can experience happiness is relative to the unhappiness we feel. If you're constantly in one state then that becomes the norm and is no longer considered "happiness" per se. I do think some people do have a higher natural level of happiness than others but I don't think anyone can be truly happy 100% of the time, the brain just isn't built that way.
Having said that, I think it's possible to have lasting unhappiness, for example people who are in a state of constant suffering due to malnutrition, clinical depression, physical pain brought on by illness or injury etc...
What are your most important values ?
I am honestly still trying to figure that out, to be honest it changes from day to day, sometimes I only want to help others, other times I only want to help myself.
What is good and what is evil ?
I think in general evil is considered an action which causes suffering to others while good is an action that benefits others. That said there's a huge grey area when it comes to actions that both harm and help others simultaneously, and that's where most of the debate regarding good and evil arises from.
What is Wisdom ?
I think Wisdom is having an intuitive understanding of how your own actions and the actions of others will affect the world around you and the people within it.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
To be honest I really find all philosophy text to be fairly dull and hard to get through, I've read the likes of David Hume, Kant and Descartes but I prefer philosophy when it's presented in a more digestable form. I would say George Orwell and Douglas Adams really stand out in this regard as their books contain tons of philosophical ideas. In terms of doctorines I really love some of the Buddhist philosophies, I really want to read and learn more about this religion.
|
On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
|
On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy.
Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
|
On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you.
Incorrect. I've put forth the assertion that Objectivism, as defined and created by Ms. Rand, is irrefutable. "Irrefutable" calls upon the realm of Logic, as does Objectivism.
By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
If you wish to "prove" or "show" me that I am wrong and Objectivism is "incorrect," then do so. If the proof you put forward is rational, then I will accept it.
However there are two things: 1) Objectivism is the only philosophy that I am aware of that correctly utilizes logic, so using it's own language against it is impossible 2) What will most likely happen is that the conundrum of "This logic makes sense to me" becomes apparent. At which point I will simply quote the first post I made in this thread and stop caring.
Objectivism is the only valid philosphy. All Philosophy boils down to the "Subjectivist vs Objectivist Dichotomy." The only way to argue "against" Objectivism is to use Subjectivist terms, which are all fallacies to begin with.
|
What is the point of life ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
What can bring you lasting happiness ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot
What are your most important values ? Never thought of making a list, need to work on it i guess more.
What is good and what is evil ? Humans
What is Wisdom ? Ability to think critically and responsible
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like ?
Socrates , Plato, Aristotle, Søren Kierkegaard, Gautama Buddha, Jean-Paul Satre, Bertrand Russel, Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bill Hicks, Robert C Solomon, Noam Chomsky.
|
On July 14 2010 17:41 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you. By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple.
This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true.
This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof.
You've committed the fallacy of begging the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
refuted
going to sleep now
|
On July 14 2010 17:51 Daimon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:41 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you. By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple. This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionrefuted going to sleep now
Strawman Argument
I asked someone to refute Objectivism. Not my presentation of Objectivism.
|
On July 14 2010 18:10 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:51 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:41 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you. By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple. This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionrefuted going to sleep now Strawman ArgumentI asked someone to refute Objectivism. Not my presentation of Objectivism.
forget the "philosophical question" of is "objectivism the best". how about the pyschological question of why a man must to cling to any one system of thought in the first place. much less the question why he must "defend against rebuttal" any and all assertions contrary to his precious mummy-ideal.
|
What is the point of life ?
Progress, or looking for it.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Nothing, or death.
What are your most important values ?
Respect, Selfconsciousness
What is good and what is evil ?
Well, on the look on society we have laws etc. subjective there is morality. I really do like the idea of morality more, ie Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment.
|
On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
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.
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence.
The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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"
None of those "antimonies" have in fact anything at all to do with philosophy and each of those has a clear yes or no answer that can only be discovered by science (if in fact they can be answered).
The universe if either infinite or finite and it may well be possible for physicists to someday answer this question.
Similarly, there is a clear answer to whether everything consists of indivisible particles and if we ever arrive at an answer it will be because of science.
Whether there is free will depends primarily on how you define free will. Free will in the classical sense, i.e. arriving at a decision through an act of will that is independent of any constraints, is obviously impossible, unless one sees a random decision as free will. Since our will clearly depends on our brain, it cannot be seen as free.
The existence of a god is still an open question, probably because this claim cannot be falsified
as long as there is no clear definition of the concept of god. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist if you don't even now what it is you're trying to disprove. However, if a god exists, it might well be possible to prove this.
|
On July 14 2010 18:48 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
The existence of a god is still an open question, probably because this claim cannot be falsified
as long as there is no clear definition of the concept of god. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist if you don't even now what it is you're trying to disprove. However, if a god exists, it might well be possible to prove this.
Can't you apply the same logic to, say, magical creatures? If so, then what is the point of even going down that path of trying to prove god is real?
If you say that something "possibly" exists, don't you need to provide some evidence as to why?
|
On July 14 2010 18:48 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence.
The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
This is not an accurate account of Objectivism or Objectivist ethics.
Objectivism argues there are three axioms:
1. Existence exists --e.g., there is something
2. Consciousness -- e.g., existence is perceived
3. Identity -- e.g., that which exists is what it is
The pattern of argument involved in defending these axioms is, basically, the same: to attack the axioms you must implicitly rely on them. i.e., Anti-Objectivist: "No, nothing exists" Objectivist: "So you don't exist and neither does your argument. But you are relying on your argument existing in order to...make an argument."
Note that the axioms are very basic. "Existence exists" doesn't tell you if there is matter or, instead, a realm of platonic ideas, or if you are sleeping in the matrix or whatever. The point is simply that there is something whatever that something is.
Moving from the foundational axioms to ethics is a long road through metaphysics and epistemology. Objectivism certainly does NOT argue that non-violence is an axiom. In many situations, stealing or killing another person would be morally permissible even if they had done nothing to you: e.g., you wash up on an island with only one inhabitant. The inhabitant has collected all the fruit on the island and there is nothing else to eat. You ask him for some fruit in order to avoid starvation. He says "you'll have to kill me to get something to eat." Objectivists would NOT claim that it would be wrong to kill this man to get some food.
An official one page summary of Objectivism:
The foundational essay of Objectivist Ethics:
Recent (within the last year) books by Objectivist Intellectuals:
Winning the Unwinnable War (American Foreign Policy)
Nothing less than victory (American Foreign Policy)
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea (Political Philosophy)
Capitalism Unbound (Political Philosophy)
The Logical Leap (Philosophy of Science // Philosophy of physics)
You can find cultural commentary from an Objectivist perspective here:
|
On July 14 2010 05:45 Epsilon8 wrote:
I generally agree with anything Buddhist (I mean this in the way where being a 'Buddhist' is meant to describe the absence of any idea of what 'Buddhism' means). Usually any philosophy that has the idea of having to go beyond thoughts and ideas in order to actually know what 'reality' and 'life' are about I like.
My beliefs are 100 % on the spiritual side.
Other then that I've recently come across the idea of scientific materialism and because of that and all the things I had been thinking of and questioning before I no longer believe in science as being able to give us anything that we can call 'real'.
I will answer your questions but as with all things words and ideas are can never touch reality because of this my answers really don't mean a thing...
1 - The point to life is to realize what the point of life is.
2. Nothing outside of yourself can bring you happiness. Furthermore, nothing that is within can bring you happiness either. That is because within and without are opposites and by searching in either place you affirm your idea of separation with everything. Happiness is in unity, not separation.
3. My most important value is - "The crystal truth of compassion" - Jack Kerouac
4. Good and evil are opposites. From my point of view neither are true. Good and evil are illusions created by the mind based on the idea of separation. The root of all good and evil is this thought. What is truly 'good' is love. And love has no opposite. I use love in the sense of 'God' and I use 'God' in the sense of wholeness, consciousness, and knowing (that is the ability of the mind to be 'luminous' and know).
5. Wisdom ultimately has nothing to do with ideas and all that to do with what is beyond ideas and conceptualization. Because the root cause of conceptualization is judgement and the root of that is the belief in the separation of everything (the universe into discrete forms). Therefore, wisdom is intrinsic to all 'forms' in the universe because all 'forms' are actually not forms because there is no separation.
So it goes like this. Your belief in separation causes you to judge and see others as separate from you. Because you judge you must necessarily eventually judge as 'good' or 'evil'. Judgement's in 'good' and 'evil' eventually lead to violence which reaffirms your belief in separation because you react and recoil from that violence from others and to yourself.
Wisdom on the other hand which is beyond conceptualizations, that is to say beyond judgement. Wisdom knows no separation and as such cannot make judgement's and because of this it is truly wise and knows not other then itself. No fear.
Let me know what you think.
I agree on what you said about the opposites and separation. Polarity.
Perceiving things as disconnected from one another causes one to not see the larger picture and therefore create concepts of good and bad - and this is the nature of mind - pin things inside a box of a managable size for the reason of comparision and analisis.
Yet there is evil but its the question of what you define as evil, question of perspective. Also - would there be good if there wouldn`t be evil ? What is the origin of good then ? There is good in polarity and there is another good, which is beyond polarity.
I think perceiving things as both sovereign and united is to be in non-polarity and being in non-polarity is to be free of judgements which cause the overdose of 'negative' emotions like irritation, anger etc ... and to be free from this overdose is to be in a virtuos cycle instead of vicious cycle. Which is to say - live a much more joyous and meaningful life, though there is much more to this.
|
On July 14 2010 16:33 Sultan.P wrote:What is the point of life ? Reproduce and survive... comfortably What can bring you lasting happiness ? I don't think anyone can have lasting happiness. I think that happiness is an emotion that you experience at a given point of time. I don't think anyone can constantly be happy at all moments. You have happy moments, sad moments, neutral moments... I would say try to make as many happy moments as possible and you achieve this either through pleasure, satisfaction from work or hobby and fulfillment of one's own goals and many other things that I'm sure are missing.
Happiness as an emotional state maybe cannot last forever but happiness as a non-emotional state can, can`t it ?
Haven`t you ever experienced a sadness that brought you joy ? You felt sad ... but deep inside you felt well with that sadness, it was meaningful and fullfiling, somehow. If that is possible then why would having lasting happiness be impossible ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
