Join the club. I know many a scientist who came to me with such questions! Remember, I was studying at a university, with lots of colleagues who are my generation... I do know what I am talking about. But then again, I have also studied in the West (I am from ex-Eastern Europe, so not a "perfect" Westerner ) and I know of Philosophers who were left equally empty (in that regard) having studied "Anglo-American" flavoured "Philosophy" (positivist nonsense, logical-this-that-or-the-other and so on)... So, you need to allow for quite some differences there.... And this should make you feel better, since I am not treating all "Western" Philosophy the same, i.e. I am equally critical of parts of Philosophy "over here"... You should have seen that already, when I talked about Heidegger etc. Hmmm... I explained already, remember? Subject matter and methodology. Not the same! As for ideology and history, they are also very different! But maybe a subject of another thread? Talking in great generalisations, without any proof put forward, as if you are a serious expert on the subject, as if you studied it all in great depth and you are not required any proof... But I beg to differ, sorry... No, I am not. I do know something about dialectics and there you might find (see Hegel) that the "evolution of Object" is closely related to the "evolution of Subject"... The two are intimately connected! And it is WHAT you and Socrate are saying that gives your lack of knowledge of (Western) Philosophy away, hence I am saying what I am saying. But you are trying to be equally versed in Philosophy, not having your statements questioned and it is obvious to me they need questioning - starting from you, questioning it carefully, never mind a professional... I was trying to be light-hearted, as in humorous, as you can see from smilies... No need to feel that way, you have earned my respect with your actions on this forum, by what you wrote on IT, how society in that area functions and so on. I happen to agree with you and I have studied some of these matters in depth, so there! It is honest! Simple, you are close-minded when it comes to "Western" Philosophy, which is a shame... Damn, why do you not allow it to me in Philosophy, then? And I am much more competent in it than you (at least when it comes to Western Philosophy, here debated) and you still think that I should change my stance on such a topic, according to what you are saying, no matter how ill-informed it seems to me...?!? Ahem... Thanx! Very cool! And I mean it! Indeed, here is the proof that you are close-minded. I suppose I would be required to be open-minded if we were to talk about Chemistry, to learn from you... Very strange attitude for an "open-minded" person, sorry but... Indeed. You have a lot to learn about these matters from a different perspective, you know very little about, I am sorry to say.... And no, I get it: you will now go and study hard, so we could one day have an equally-footed debate... very cool! (...one more coming...)
Like you know for sure what happens then? Well, I suggest your studies include Kant and his three questions, all flowing into a single question... Maybe you deepen your knowledge... I hope you do! In the meantime start considering joy and achievement, happiness and exhilaration, ecstasy and profound gratification, then........ You get the picture... All the "little" stuff worth living for... you mysteriously omitted... Wow!
OK, one more reply for tonight. I admire your coolness how you reply (I know that I ermm...what's the word tease you...) dunno if it's a weakness (lack of arguments)...or a measure to get more outa you. Yes I don't really know much about western Psychology. We know that already. You're a good rhetorician as well...you know that. "Like you know for sure what happens then?" You know it as well. Exactly that what you think it will, what else could? And when there are no more thoughts nothing happens to 'you'. There is happening = being only. But nobody needs to 'wait' for that, that what IS is now. "In the meantime start considering joy and achievement, happiness and exhilaration, ecstasy and..." Ever tried meditation? Meditation fits to western Philosophy, or is it declared to be dullness of the mind? IF meditation is experienced then Descartes is clearly proved wrong. Have a good nite.
Our human endeavor to understand the universe based on what can be verified, and what can be rationally deduced from verified facts. Science is about pattern recognition and prediction of experimental results and nothing else but laws of physics do not change from place to place, time to time, and person to person.
I don't think I've ever seen somebody try to jam Neitzsche and Wollstonecraft in a blender and setting it on puree before... At least not while keeping a straight face.
@gorski: western "philosophers" address issues of the heart with a busy mind. They are not real philosophers, they are just a bunch of frustrated rationalists who wanted to grasp the wisdom of the ancients, but couldn't because of their busy minds...so it was <logic> to them to write their own assumptions on the subject. And time passed and everybody else took their garbage for granted...lies becoming truth.
One might argue it comes with competence and a healthy self-assurance/self-esteem (a part of 'ego'), I suppose. I might have been less "cool" when I was considerably younger, though... You seem to be cool, too, so thanx - very cool to know people can see it and appreciate it... Do I? That's a first for me, never knew it was all inside of me already... Thanx! Where do I search? Today I had Jehova's Witnesses at the door, who were about to "enlighten" me... In the end, when we got down to the nitty-gritty, I told them they know very little on the subject, so I had to teach them about agnosticism. Do I have to do it here, too? The answer is - if one is honest - we don't know, we can't have any proof of that, so anybody is free to make up little stories about it... But c'mon, do we really need it? I need to live my life well, with some dignity and meaning, love and affection, having made as many good choices as I could have and so on... You know, leave with pride... And then - whatever happens - happens. Why dwell upon such matters when we simply can not know, one way or the other?? Supposition, no proof. And I already told you I am not a believer... Depends what you mean by that. Maybe open a new debate? Errrmmm, meditation, as it is currently being taught to Westerners, fits well with the needs of Capitalism to go unchallenged... It's mostly a tool to get you to cope, sure... But if you take "meditating" in a different, more "western" manner, it might lead to some real changes in one's life, where one doesn't need to meditate to barely cope with whatever bones are thrown to us from the masters' table... Meditation then takes on a very different.... Ach, another topics, maybe? As for the omitted subjects: Hegel's great three subjects were broken down, after him, and not taken up as a whole since: so struggle and labour went to Marx and death went to Heidegger... Worth a think or three?!? Good morning (back to bed, for a quick nap, if I can...)!
The only one making assumptions here is you, sorry, m8... Based on utter lack of knowledge in the area. I am really sorry that I have to be so blatant in this regard - but the truth can liberate, so it's up to you... Look, there is a whole bunch of them considering it all from "irrationalist" perspective (Montaigne, for instance)... Btw, I had a course, at the Uni, on the subject - very interesting... But ultimately a dead end.
...heh... Hegel, for instance, calls Newton an "inductive donkey" and passages on Newton in his History of Philosophy are quite an indictment, in this regard, well worth a read, especially if one is a scientist with positivist delusions...
sid_16:, you are always surprising me. You have a real great variety of knowledge through many scientific subjects and famous European, let me say ‚thinker’. The chance that ‚our’ knowledge about a special theory of a scientist, thinker can match and be discussed is greater than at gorski. I can count great names and theories and gorski can and sid_16 can. But unfortunately I have nothing fundamental for a basic discussion on a higher level I could do with gorski. Sure I have read Kant (but that was a younger Yen ‘forced’ to do so on a general high school). With Descartes I had my problems, always. My life did not confront me with western Philosophy. I never had developed a real interest for it. My time was always fully engaged. When I was 12 years I knew I’d study Chemistry in a way. Due to my travels I got interest in eastern culture. Sid’s way of thinking is scientific, but variable. gorski has studied a special subject and I have to say atm he’s not that flexible in thinking as I would like. He has an automatic self defense mechanism of his excessively studied matter. I can only make an assumption, because it had been the same at me after study. It makes blind for other views AND one automatically presses anything in learned schemes. When I wrote I compare Descartes with Newton and Satre with Heisenberg and Schrödinger, then I got something like….how I could do that…I don’t have to knowledge to do that….. Come on, where is your creativeness? I posted the aspect LATER: From object to consciousness. THIS is the evolution of science. From mechanic to quantum mechanic, from matter to energy. From fixed places to probable places. Nothing IS certain!!! No-thing is absolute. Descartes motivation had been to find something that is certainly. Is there anything I can know with absolute certainty? He asked himself. And Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle!! contra! Do I need to be creative for you??? Trapped one, lol!!! Proof, proof, proof, lol Your reply on this: “Talking in great generalizations, without any proof put forward, as if you are a serious expert on the subject, as if you studied it all in great depth and you are not required any proof... But I beg to differ, sorry...” Not I ‘compare’ physics and philosophy, those persons WERE persons of BOTH matters. Descartes was also a natural scientist, Schrödinger has philosophic approaches and Newton originally belonged to the Philosopher as you know. (Does he belong to the worthy, no?) “Supposition, no proof. And I already told you I am not a believer..” I cannot deliver a proof by communications, I am sorry. I am experiencing it when I meditate. We are here at a point and that you have to ‘learn’. Mind patterns, study, speech, science. Crude tools of consciousness. Do it and you know! Existence cannot be proved. Iamness also. All you have in your mind are ideas of it. Existence in its ‘originality IS. Your mind has only an image of it! Trapped in Philosophy, lol. “But nobody needs to 'wait' for that, that what IS is now. Depends what you mean by that. Maybe open a new debate? Why not? After this thread, lol….unfortunately next week my spare time will be rare. I have to teach again…and spread science to new individuals, to poison their minds that they can ‘work’ in a capitalistic society…..lol. The truth I never can teach though… “The answer is - if one is honest - we don't know, we can't have any proof of that, so anybody is free to make up little stories about it... But c'mon, do we really need it? I need to live my life well, with some dignity and meaning, love and affection, having made as many good choices as I could have and so on... You know, leave with pride... And then - whatever happens - happens. Why dwell upon such matters when we simply can not know, one way or the other??” The word proof poisons here again….you actually have got what I mean, “Exactly that what you think it will, what else could?” The point isn’t here what (contents) will happen. (And yes these we don’t know) The point is there can’t be anything outside of the mind. There are no 2 minds. When you watch the sky, you watch your mind. When thinking of a second cosmos it immediately becomes one cosmos. Anything needs to be reflected by a individual mind that it can happen to the individual. Only thing one needs to remain: awareness. So it ever happens what you think it happens, presently. SOCRATE_MMXII is woken up. Feel free to give a meaning to this statement, use your mind. Any result won’t be the truth though. My relative truths can be your relative lies.
You will be reincarnated and will join his technical forums as new administrator (not as a replacement but co-administrator and philosophical adviser). Because he is a strong believer of reincarnation or life after death as he had mentioned it many times in other thread.
Why don't you do some 'homework' before posting these garbage. A person who uses rationality considers every option known to him and weighs it against his own experiences to reach a conclusion. Basically, a "rational" person can give any answer whatsoever to this question as long as he has given deliberate thought to his conclusion. I think the problem is that you simply don't understand what the term "rational" actually means. Are you recently read Orwellian novel nineteen eight four?
These physicists that are most famous for explaining other people's work rather than work of their own. Schrodinger was famous for putting quantum entanglement in layman's terms (Schrodinger's Cat) Heisenberg was famous for putting the Copenhagen Interpretation into simplified terms (Uncertainty Principle) Bohr is famous for coming up with simplified models of atomic structure that could be understood by laymen (Bohr Model) Although these men did make some serious contributions to the field of QM, all three of them were basically hanging from the coattails of other scientists and philosophers at the time. Bohr by Kierkegaard, Heisenberg by Bohr, and Schrodinger by Schopenhauer.
sid_16: That is called scientific progress in time relative to an individual. . Even though a lot generalized. Those are models of reality, but not the reality itself. And concerning Philosophy it are models of truth, but not the truth itself. The models are changing, reality and truth ever remain unchanged. From the aspect of realty and tuth there is no scientific progress. Reality and truth are as the are, nothing can be added or gained.
Saying this to an 'eastern' phil. he probably would answer that you have something said that is true, without to have got what IS true to him in that statement. You do not want to know what it is, do you?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... jury... jury... The debate has entered a time loop... loop.... loop... Thereby, I withdraw my candidature.... didature...dature... tur... ...for the presidency of the United States of Amuuuurica... urica... rica...ica... Madams et messieurs's, Elvis has left the bulding... ilding... ing... A-ha-ha... ha-ha... a-ha... ha... (Thank you very much... much... much... ouch... )
cant`t say that i really blame you, gorski.. the tragedy of it all is that we should all have realized, that you put down some expertise here,,like pearls before the swine.. trouble is, imho, that the swines are from so many different cultures.. a hearty GROINK to you sir, and my regards to obelix.. p,s. did you know there Irish used to call that selfsame swine the gentleman who pays his own rent? p.p.s. i guess descartes is a wee bit over my head, and i guess it is time somebody said that, for i suspect i`m not the only one.. respectfully yours, nodnar..
I enjoyed to discuss here. That is the important thing. When studying a subject you have only pearls around. When exercising it as your job in the world, the swines will join. (in the aspect of the phrase). Due to lack of knowledge of western Philosophy I could not argue at the same level, but that doesn't mean to have no way to get 'the truth'. I am just not able to use those particular tools. Wisdom is not dependent on western philosophy. To want to convince is always an attribute of one's ego. The study of it I respect, though. One needs to realize his abilities, no matter what they are. So I did. Thanks to all who have contributed.
A tiny addition to the pearls already here... Einstein has done nothing but put a maths form to principles from (Ancient Greek philosopher) Zeno's paradox(es)... [...I am not really here but far, far away...]