@yen, nodnar, tell me please how do you think about gorskis statement: "I will surmise that you actually understand neither Science nor Humanity, never mind Philosophy.." well, i have no excuse for that, like i said people get carried away on a subject that is dear to them, and i cannot find it in my heart to blame them, really. and it is not so much that i am not very much involved, yen, it it more like i have my genuine doubts that i am the fountain of wisdom here..i know very well that i am not. not for want of trying. i tried to read philosophical stuff when i was younger, like marcuse, and i had to confess to myself that i was right out of my depth, there.. as for the things you say about the difference between between actually experiencing things, and the theoretical `facts` i can only wholeheartedly agree; a grade at a university in anything hardly qualifies a person to say his opinion is a fact. and we all have got our values, mostly from experience, and not from theory..
Socrate, their hearts are after stuff that is taboo for a reason. You mentioned how "heart thinks". They do all that I mentioned because of their desires. Those, to use your rhetoric, rest in our "hearts". Hearts can be fu**ed up, you know... Moreover, people without a big ego can have messed up "hearts". Possibly because their egos are way too small, even, they can become - for instance - dependent on their mummies a little bit too much, if you know what I mean... Just one example... Now that I have demolished your "position" you should really let me be, please...
Here is the complete context, if you wanna be fair: Now that we have a proper context, we can say: 1) Yen's statement is utterly incorrect and misleading: science developed and is developing through having the freedom to disagree and without disagreements no novelty will come! That would be the dark ages! You get the permanent agreement and there is no more science. Or philosophy. 2) Science is NOT a happy-clappy home where everybody simply and fluffily agrees on anything or even everything, as implied, in such an unqualified statement by Yen. 3) My intervention was to shake his unqualified statement a bit, with a bit of humour, rather than a dry Philosophical debate. He obviously did not get the humour. And he doesn't understand Philosophical reasoning. Sadly! So, as I said: time wasted. This post, I hope, will not be time wasted, as I tried clearing up potential misunderstandings... Obviously, it is easily possible to have those... Far too easily. Which is why it is better not to even start, it seems...
Dear mr. gorski, You claim to be a philosopher, 'cause "you've studied the subject" so in this case you're the expert. You have no idea what's the ego and what's the self and really it's not your fault. You're a part of the system and you love it because it's comfortable. You like it this way: you're a professor and everybody respects you. You demand respect because you've studied hard to get where you are; but in the process you lost your most precious thing: your heart. You threw it away to garbage 'cause in your opinion it doesn't serve you. It can't push you forward "in life". You'll realize my words when you'll be retired...see you in 20 or so years. @sid_16: thank you.Keep on dreaming. It's nice to have "everything ready". @jayblok: you're really funny, you know that?
No it's not time wasted. Thanks for it, I can get it now, I didn't get it, because Chemistry is my favorite till I was 12. I spent a lot of my kid's spare time to experiment at home. I had a own little lab at home. My way was always observe, plan, use present knowledge and conclude. I had always a close relationship to nature, I want to explore it. Chemistry is a big part in my life. When you try to research then you research nothing but yourself. The unqualified statement of me had been the expression of myself not to be able to compare different philosophers. It is not unqualified, it expresses my inability to get along with Philosophy. I asked myself why I cannot compare Satre with Descartes, why I cannot apply Carnap's theory to I think therefore I am. And then you confirmed that in Philosophy there are disagreements. Look, natural science has no past models which are inconsistent, they always characterize a special complex of attributes of matter. And they are established all over the world. At Philosophy there are huge differences in different cultures. My way to think is influenced from Eastern Philosophy. I am familiar with Tibetan mysticism, I have read a lot in my life, but the authors were different. I have found 'wisdom' there which I am practising. My quality of life has highly increased. I am living 'this' Philosophy. So I ever had a problem why you never really have thought about them, evaluated and replied directly to the contents, instead of saying, no that's not true: Have a look here.... 'My' Philosophy here is strictly limited to questions about one's self. I never had the competence to use western Philosophy, but that is IMHO not needed debating the topic. I guess we have that clarified and thanks for your reply clarifying that all.
But I did point you to a really good quality text on the topic in hand, on several occasion... I really did... And I did reply in detail to most of your points... I took to pains to try to help out, if I could, in the best spirit, initially... But misunderstandings kinda prevailed, prejudices endured, there was no real movement towards one another and hence misunderstandings are still here. Partially culturally, partially linguistically, partially a different civilisational circle (school of thought) etc. Once again, I have also lived and I still live what I studied and campaigned on etc. So, this is not just your privilege, you know. But it still needs to be expressed in notions we all know, hopefully without much jargon, 'cause most people can't figure out technical stuff from either Science or Philosophy, yes... And if one, as Sid warned you, gives a different meaning to commonly used notions - trouble again... misunderstandings galore. Of course, you do realise I do not like "mystifying" things, generally speaking, and I do not see answers to my questions on some far away mountain... Hence additional misunderstandings... All in all, I think there is now enough (both literature and individual stances) material here, to make one's minds up, which way is the right way for one...
Gorski, a fino ti piše na profilnoj slici "zabranjeno kurčenje", ali ovaj tvoj kolega koji misli da sve zna, ipak ne zna ćirilicu, pa se kurči. E tako ti to inače i bude u životu, misli da zna a ne zna. Ćirilicu. Pa to povlači brdo drugih stvari... Eto u tome je problem.
At least I laughed a bit.../Barem sam se dobro nasmijao... A couple of Ancient Greek proverbs apply here: γνῶθι σεαυτόν (Gnothi seauton) - Know thyself and As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.
And this is supposed to be Forum -> Beautiful Life -> Serious Discussion Note "serious". How can it be serious when it is cracking funny how some people take themselves too seriously.
sorry for bumping an old thread but this one was linked from a newer one and it looks like it will be a good read. bumped to have a way to located it for later. thanks to all the contributors ;-)
It's too vague to interpret. Existence can not be defined by 3 words. Existence is about what it means to you. You cannot simply say that our brains do all the thinking so therefore we cannot understand. That's not true. We understand that our brains do all the thinking, and so could a computer. I think people think the "Cogito ergo sum" means more than it actually does. It really doesn't mean much at all.