OK, one more thing, since you keep insisting on some crazy ideas re. the notion of time... With Hegel, for as long as we're Human, we can say "At the beginning there was - future!" I repeat, it's not meant in a temporal sense but Philosophically! In the best tradition of German Classical Philosophy ("Idealism"), it is a "speculative" stance! OK, you have just had some more ammunition for several tons of misunderstanding now... go on, fire away... "Timbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I hope I will... And I was playing a cowboy, hurtling a lasso over the edge of the roof... Woof, woof!!! If I slipped... boy... 5 floors down... a looooong way to remember the whole of one's life...
As usual I just ran across a link to human stupidity. Anything that starts with a lead this good is worth reading. The essay is presented as a scientific analysis of why stupid people cause harm, and explains why we are defenseless against them. Great stuff. It may not be satire.
Mr 60cent, if you really following this thread you must have some idea what the topic is and how is the discussion going on? You made a division between Yen and Socrate / Gorski, Sid_16 and R29k. What made you think that what we posted about Rene Descartes philosophy 'Cogito ergo sum' is pure speculation? If you know better about Rene Descartes philosophy please do enlighten us. P.S- Which of the following theories of truth do you subscribe to? 1) Correspondence- 'A' is true, if and only if, 'A' corresponds to a fact. 2) Coherence- 'A' is true if and only if, 'A' is a member of a set of internally consistent beliefs. 3)Pragmatism-1- 'A' is true, if and only if, 'A' is provable , or verifiable under ideal conditions- what would be obtained under ideal conditions, at the conclusion of an enquiry . 4)Pragmatism-2- 'A' is true, if and only if, it is useful for us to believe. You might like to give us a few words as to what does it for you about your preferred theory and what it is about the others that you eschew. Note:- Then you'll decide why we disagreed with our opponents.
@60cent, I'm not angry. I actually find Socrates quite funny because of all the magical nonsense he posts.
I hope he got the feelings involved a wee bit better, since all those smilies are there for a reason... But oh, nooooo....
You have really an issue here. You acknowledge my knowledge in Chemistry even though you cannot judge about 'my' quality. I never had posted about Chemistry. Maybe I am a bad Chemist and of no use. But you disagree with everything I write concerning my experience, my statements. You think your Philosophy is superior. You want me to study your stuff that I can repeat your stuff??? To have studied something universal (love to wisdom) should make you tolerate ‘other’ love to wisdom as well. I do not have the claim to be familiar with 'Philosophy', but I say what I mean to the topic and it is right to me. I have posted valid arguments which your ego doesn't tolerate. And I cannot give you a break. You have to ask your mind for a break constantly wanting to have your Philosophy accepted. And when you have an issue with your father in law then do not project it onto me, it won’t help you clarifying it. And what is western Philosophy worth? Where does it act to have benefit for humankind? People still kill, don't know who they are. They are totally mind controlled, not really living. All their actions are caused by fear. They are polluting the environment the same way as their 'I' idea is polluted. They are consuming to forget their suffer. Don't say the Europeans are better or the westerns than the rest of the world.... The human mind is the greatest sickness in evolution of consciousness, the animal mind is far more peaceful. Animals have no wars. And your Philosophy says they are past! Every human that is mind controlled is past! I think therefore I am means I don’t live where I can at all, at present. I think therefore I can exploit, this is modernity. What is today's Philosopher's function in a society? What are the goods, benefits for our society? Maybe you should make them clear so that people can respect western Philosophy.
I don't know the debate, but the number is relative, 'cause angels can change shape and size: so there can be none when they choose to be as big as humans or even bigger or some huge number if they choose to be sub-atomic size. Logic, mind, thought to me seems pointless now, 'cause I choose the <other way>. I AM. NOW. HERE. EVERYWHERE.
"You all seem to be enjoying yourselves. And, in life, that's all that really matters." Suchness. And where it IS, NOW. I know Newton's debate from study. A matter of boredom of a scientist.... If the angels would be almost as fast as light speed, then the angels would not certainly find the location of the head, because of Heisenberg's uncertainty. Newton is dead.
@yen, what you say about gorski having to make clear what is the good of [ i suppose you mean western-] philosophy to society seems like passing the buck, to these eyes.. there is a whole lot of good to be had, if people bother to listen, if they are able to understand.. democracy, or the thought that all people are born equal, did not just fall from the high heavens, imho.. so yes, i`ll listen, the understanding lags behind a bit, but that`s just my own limitations acting up..
Yes, why not. It was your post that initiated them to create this thread and they're as usual engaging themselves in magical thinking. As I stated earlier in other thread of this type of discussion, they 're basing their beliefs on nothing more than a gut feeling. Such reasoning leads to all manner of fallacious beliefs, including religion and spirituality. Just because science cannot explain something does not mean we are justified in making up stuff to fill up the gaps in our 'subjective (mystic)' knowledge. I agree that our scientific knowledge is not complete , doesn't mean science can't explain something. It simple means we need more data on specific subject to explore the unknown. Science cannot explain their definition of self, consciousness, therefore they're taking their speculations as truth. Not absolute truth, but truth nonetheless. Descartes gave an illustration that went somewhat as follows; An Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that (he) doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "cogito ergo sum / I think, therefore, I am". The word 'spiritual' has many meanings for different people, so it’s really hard to figure out what someone means when they talk about “spirituality”. For some, it means nothing more than a sense of awe about the universe. And for others it means something decidedly supernatural. I think the only approach here is to decide for yourself what the word means and if it’s one you want to use, or not. But here's the problem; the kind of certainty that we can be cent% certain about is a kind of certainty that is different and distinct from the kind of certainty philosophers are talking about. I believe there is no intrinsic meaning to anything. The only meaning we have in our own lives is what we build into them by our actions. Knowing the unknowable (subjective experience) is often claimed to be transcendent, unfathomable, inscrutable, inaccessible to all human ways of knowing, which is why their existence cannot be proven. On the other hand the believers obviously think of themselves as having some kind of knowledge about how they feel that something exist, since they claim for a fact that it does exist. Not even the believers themselves would consider this other way of knowing - whether it is intuition, a gut feeling or whatever- a good enough reason for believing in such theory any other theory than their own. of course
One of the better arguments against your proposition, in my opinion, is directed at an inherent absurdity. If your proposition (solipsism) is true, then I must assume that I have written every book I have read or would've written it as I read it, composed every piece of music I have heard, painted every picture that I have viewed, etc etc etc. Socrate, did you remember "why there is something rather that nothing" thread and my reply to both of you. Did I write the complete works of Shakespeare? I can't now sit down and write anything like that, that's for sure. So it seems absurd that, when I'm reading Shakespeare, I'm reading something of my own invention.
Oh, man, you really need to give yourself a break, Yen... before everybody else... You have an issue, it seems to me, because you seem to think that if you are of no use to capitalism you're a bad chemist... Galileo and Bruno were bad to Feudalism but they were great to Mankind... Sure, I recognise that after XYZ years of studying it you MUST know much more than me about Chemistry. Moreover, you teach chemistry. I think you must have some guys overseeing your work... So, as bad as the system may be (but not that bad, not in Germany... ), you can not be that bad and I know less than you! So, now it's your turn... I have studied Philosophy for decades now... Get it? Or are you gonna wriggle some more and there will still not be a non-wriggle-out-of-this statement in good spirit, without constant relativisation of issues here...?!? Who on Earth said that?!? I said you do not have a clue what philosophical thinking is. You try to relativise everything so it's a big mushy-peas pile of - nothing! It's a night in which all cows are - rather surprisingly - black! Anyone has the right and might to think whatever they want. But that does not make this type of thinking either valid or true! Even if they say "It's valid/true for me" - it may still be wrong and completely messed up. (This is on the level of principles, not apportioning any judgement to anyone in particular just yet!) In your case, you seem to be constantly inventing fire, all over again, since no one told you it has been invented... Seriously, if I were this interested in fire I would inform myself properly. You may get further and deeper with the time and energy you have left in you... A warm piece of advice. On the other point: in Philosophy there is sooooo much disagreement that your point shows just how little of it you know, and understand the nature of Philosophy even less. Sad. And I mean it. May I remind you of some excellent literature I have mentioned in this thread. Use it. You're not stupid. Just German... Bloody intransigent!!! And to your own peril, I may add... (...part 2 to follow...)
Show me that you have learnt - anything in the "region you criticise"... Pretty please... Otherwise, this is but empty rhetoric! Sorry but... I disagree: I think your ego can not hear anyone, it is so big it doesn't allow anyone in. Or is it too small to take anything in? I don't know. But tell me, why is it that when people show you through some serious failings in your thinking you just ignore it. Ignoring is a power game. Of the worst kind. And Northerners are really good at it, I gather... Sadly, this is true. Southerners would take up the issue and openly debate, sincerely, even coming to blows at times... But you just ignore it. And plough on, regardless of anything that has been said, when one challenges your statements... As I explained, the same would apply in Chemistry, to some total ignoramus making an arse of him-/herself, talking bollo*#% and trying to say "this is Chemistry to me, I have lived it, I have experienced it, this is true to me and I want it to stay that way, so all you Chemists stay away!!!" I mean, c'mon, man... "Never give an inch" is really NOT the way to live one's life, regardless of which area is debated and how (un)familiar one might be in it... As a principle. Again, wrong on all points! You can not simply "have my philosophy". You are a different person. But you can learn how to think philosophically, which at the moment you do not know how to do. You suck at it. Full stop. I have the same issue with him (my f-in-law). He has no tools to fly in Philosophy, heck, he can not even walk, never mind run in Philosophy - but he insists on flying in it and wanting to teach me how it is done... Should I really state it again? OK, NO CAN DO!!!! So, to use the phrase from the previous paragraph: "suck on it"... and one day we could have a fruitful debate... Otherwise, the only constructive thing I can do here is 1) shake your self-delusions a bit and 2) help you learn a thing or two of the area you are allegedly interested in by pointing out a really good source to learn from... (...part 3 coming...)
Your bias is mind-boggling. (EDIT: this "edit" is written after I have written the full response to your post - I was seriously horrified here, at the level of your ignorance and bias coming from ignorance re. Philosophy and in particular "Western Philosophy"! I doubt that it is malevolent or arrogant. Just utterly uninformed. Your intentions I generally understand and stand with you unequivocally!!! However, the way you are trying to claim the "moral high ground" is utterly intellectually incompetent and morally completely unjustifiable!!! For starters, you should know that "Western" civilisation is actually "Mediterranean-Western"... Think about it...) If only you knew anything of that which you are trying to be such a quick and serious judge, jury and executioner of... Really, bewildering statement of yours!!! I can't begin expressing my horror at what I just read!!! (No wonder you do not want to learn ANYTHING of/from/about it... Which makes my points to you all the more important and obviously correct!!!) It's like an Islamic fundamentalist pi**ing from on high onto "Western Science" asking for "Islamic Science" to be the real "science"... Oychhhhh.... Go back and read what I wrote. Remember the point I raised about "fairness" to my Balkanic ex-compatriot? You just became another Bakanic barsteward! My points are NOT fan-like, if you actually READ what I wrote on precisely the same topic, for crying out loud!!! But because SOME are acting like that - ergo ALL WESTERNERS ARE THE SAME?!? My word, Yen... Why do you live in this part of the world, then?!? Explain it to a lion, when you find yourself face to face with it and you do not see any "soul" behind those eyes starring at you and seeing only a bit of flesh, its next meal... No morals to appeal to, no debate, no meeting of the souls or minds... just "Nature red in tooth and claw"... (...last part coming...)
Complete quackery ('scuze the pun! ), as I hinted at, already. That (aggressive, objectifying possibility) is but one possibility within Modernity, if we are objects and not real, modern Subjects, pro-active and competent, morally and otherwise, co-creating an inter-subjective future/reality. And only Modernity has that possibility! Not pre-Modernity, which you seem to revel in... Unless you see Gingis-Khan as some kind of a saint from pre-Modernity, who was "civilising" the world, for instance? Maybe you should learn the ABC of the topic you despise. How on Earth can you even open your mouth on the topic you do not have a bloody clue on?!? And you are surprised that I insist on some elementary recognition of Philosophy and those who actually know something about it, when people like you are such "judges" on the topic you do not have the first clue about... This is an outrage!!! Especially since it wasn't the Philosophers who were directly complicit in world wars and terrible suffering caused to Humanity - but Scientists with no conscience, no Humanist education, no idea whether they were coming or going!!! rolleyes And then, they have "become death" - nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, to mention but a few... Suck on this for a while and tell me more about your "function in Capitalism"... And then I'll tell you of a role a critically minded Philosopher (such as Bruno, Galileo, Voltaire, Morus etc. etc.) has in a Modern society. "The Devil's seed of Philosophy" in Prussia was Hegel, when the State sent its poltrons/ankle-lickers at him... Go figure... Some of the highest "enemies of the (inter-war) German state" (under Nazis) were philosophers. I mean, even Sartre had such a role for a while - remember, ironically enough, you defended him uncritically, in an unqualified manner, which is very dodgy and "un-philosophical", when I attacked his political leanings towards Stalin, Mao and co. - which he held, for quite a while... Who is the "conscience of America"? Some "eastern" goo-roo? I don't think so! It's a "westerner", Chomsky, the philosopher. And I could go on but what for? You will not dare think about any of this, since it is questioning your little dogma... Sorry, Yen, in your head all these things are a bloody mess - but more importantly, it's all upside-down... I can help you sort it out but I can not do it for you. And for that you need to drop this enormous guard, your phenomenal bias, based in nothing seriously thought through, I am sorry to have to say... P.S. I have not read your post before I started answering. So, my astonishment and changed mood, as I went along, is a real expression of what I felt before this post - but I couldn't be sure of it, back then. I am sure of it now, Yen. You really are seriously biased and completely fan-like, about things you do not know anything or extremely little about... And what you do know, you misuse against it... Very unscientific, too, if I may say so...
Angels are faster than the speed of light. And they move according to other laws, not laws "discovered" or "invented" by mind. Are you sure? They can take any "form" and have any "density". They don't care about human logic. They care only about human feelings. They don't <think>. They act according to ONE LAW. @sid: I'm really sorry my friend, but logic has failed me, so my answer is not logical...sorry.
You're right about that last thing, that's for sure... oh, The-All-Knowing-One... So, you will be known as "TAKO", from now on... In Serbo-Croat it means "that's the way"! Your God Father...
@gorski: I can't reply a matter of the heart from the mind alone. It's like trying to fix a human body using a screw-driver. If I have been "TAKO", I would be in 9D at least...I guess. P.S. Don't be angry...it gives you wrinkles.