The Philosophy Thread

Here you can talk about anything (that isn't related to the other forums).

Moderator: Crew

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Feb 06, 2012 0:25

I thought we need one. I simply want another thread where I see my nick as the last poster. :lol: (truly, now I miss OG where you could exchange your opinions with tens of people)

For the starters. Philosophers (to simplify things - people who use their brains and are aware that something's going on around them ;) ) can be divided into many groups, but one of the most important is division between pessimists and optimists. Pessimists generally believe that our life has no real purpose and we are merely the cogwheels in the Machine and even if there's a Purpose and this Machine (God, Mother Nature etc.) can be more or less described by our means of decribing things we hold no power to control the Whole or to identify ourselves as single beings or at least to find/understand a sense in All This. Probably there are more universes and more gods. There are too many theories how to live and how to organise societies. Life is itself a source of existential pain. Pessimists are usually atheists.

Optmists GENERALLY believe that there's a sense in All This, universe was created on purpose, human existence is fun, evolution has a goal and even if we are cogwheels we are still individual beings, we feel, experience, think, and the sole fact that we exist can be the source of happiness and optimism. We exist - so, even if there was a Higher Force which created us, there's must be a purpose, sense etc. There are patterns to follow. Optmists are usually believers.

For the starters. 8)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Scythe
Winner of CWF review contest!
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:59
Location: Nova

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Scythe » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:26

eMTe wrote:I thought we need one. I simply want another thread where I see my nick as the last poster. :lol: (truly, now I miss OG where you could exchange your opinions with tens of people)
I try really hard not to post anything that could be considered terribly deep here, because that tends to get me into arguments or debates or whatever, and that usually puts me in a lousy mood these days. You should probably be spending time somewhere else, but then of course you have to deal with the asshats that come with it. :roll:

On topic: I consider myself an existential nihilist. I merely put on a brave face in my despair of insiginificance. Which is probably why I love gaming and other forms of escapism. The times of being philosophical about it are over, now I just have to live with the consequences of thinking too much.

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Feb 06, 2012 23:31

At least there will exist such a thread when millions of members will browse CWF forums, in 2679 AD or something...

Interesting thing you said, because that's actually what I try to explain my philosopher friends (they truly are - two of them write doctoral thesis and one planned it when he was younger, but he still reads a lot, has sort of discussion club for fellow philosophers and such) - the more you think, the more pessimistic you are. I have quite simple approach to life, but I had a life period when I read a lot (much more than now) books on philosophy, cosmology and such and noticed at some point that thinking too much about "big" dilemmas puts me into bad mood. Now I treat discussions about nature of things merely as a mind and language exercises and that's why Id love to see such a thread on CWF. 8)

My friends, on the contrary, oh, they have much more serious approach, yes they do... :doh:
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Chroelle
Admin emeritus
Posts: 9870
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:19
Location: Location, location...
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Chroelle » Wed Feb 08, 2012 13:13

I think that believers or non-believers might not be the difference between optimists and pessimists - I believe looking back or looking ahead might have even more to do with it. If you live a life where you wonder "what if", or compare your NOWto your THEN, then you might be in for a disappointment. As you said it yourself:
" (truly, now I miss OG where you could exchange your opinions with tens of people)"
But if you look at it more optimistically then you got a chance to get some NEW peoples oppinion in this forum. No doubt that you would get more response on OG, but it would also bear mark of a forum where people typed in 10 words and called it one of their longer posts.
Here you get an adult audience that knows you somewhat after dealing with you for years now (that sounded like we have been working on you - wasn't meant to) and as such responds in a way that you would perhaps enjoy more (less a**-kissing and more knowledgable of the fact that you are not looking for a quick chat). :)
A pessimist would propably find pleasure though in talking to friends that would agree with him, while optimist finds more joy in trying to let others in on the happiness-bringing secret that is his way of life.
So all in all I just circled myself, made myself confused, overthought it and now I am depressed. :)
Currently testing Life version 2.9 (With added second child)
(Beta testing in progress)

www.paed-it.dk - My blog in Danish

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
--Mark Twain

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Feb 09, 2012 0:40

Chroelle wrote:I think that believers or non-believers might not be the difference between optimists and pessimists
I think it's true.
Chroelle wrote:I believe looking back or looking ahead might have even more to do with it.
I think it's true and science can tell us lots of things about how this really works, on the biological side. I mean, why some people look back and some forth. But...
Chroelle wrote:If you live a life where you wonder "what if", or compare your NOWto your THEN, then you might be in for a disappointment.
Here comes the problem, because nobody looks only back or only forth. And nobody chooses at some point of his life to either be an optimist or pessimist, you simply become one, it's the long process. It's not similar to quitting the smoking habit. Besides, you're never a total optimist or total pessimist, you are happy with some things and unhappy with other. So there's a lot of viewpoints you can look from at this issue. Does it come at you by accident? Are you genetically predisposed? Do you have some role to play? Is your approach to life "good" or "bad"? And what is good and what bad? And why do we even ask these questions? ;)

One thing I like about philosophy is that it's a great mind exercise. One may not treat it seriously, but it occupies your mind no less than point'n'click adventure or puzzle game. Or pixelhunting. ;)

Besides, one of the BIGGEST ONES, came from Denmark and since I have an odd soft spot for Scandinavia. Well... 8)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Chroelle
Admin emeritus
Posts: 9870
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:19
Location: Location, location...
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Chroelle » Thu Feb 09, 2012 15:45

Indeed - we produced great minds. :) (That should not only be past tense...)

I believe we are some waht disposed to being optimistic or pessimistic. Here comes th anecdote with which I will build the world around. :)
I have a friend who was brought up in a very positive family, and as such became a very optimistic guy. He then met a very optimistic girl who grew up in a pessimistic family, where the father was trying to be optimistic but wth a mother and a big sister who was EXTREME pessimists - always going "That will end badly", "I told you so", you shouldn't try new stuff you will only get disappointed. As a child she lived by her fathers way, but as she became a mother she had no other rolemodel but her own mother and bigsister, and is now telling her kids the exact same thing over and over again, and as a result, the kids are slowly turning pessimistic, though not when they are with their father. He is still fighting hard to be an optimist, but the pattern repeats and he is turning into his own dad-in-law.
The pessimist will never be persuaded that things are all good, while the optimist is easier to knock off their high ground, as the world in general is a shitty place - and it is hard to constantly view it with a smile...
I think that you are born into one thing or the other, or significant life changes can change you from one to the other, but I do believe you are mostly one or the other, and to an extent so that it defines you.

Philosophy is great mind excercise, but as it is said many times in philosophical debates - to debate it you have to assume some things, and tie things down to a single thing that you believe drives it. For example: Could it also be my girl friends tough schooldays that taught her to be pessimistic or the fact that there was already one optimist in the house and someone needed to be the pessimist... In that case it has nothing to do with genetics but lots to do with social heritage.
Currently testing Life version 2.9 (With added second child)
(Beta testing in progress)

www.paed-it.dk - My blog in Danish

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
--Mark Twain

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat Feb 11, 2012 13:23

I wouldnt agree with your last paragraph. I think it's possible to look at everything from different perspectives. For me it would be quite easy to defend both Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa, for the sake of discussion. But sure, it is hard or impossible to LIVE in both ways - to force yourself to be an optimist, philantropist or simply good man for one half of your life and to be pessimist, nihilist or simply bad man for the other, for example. So, I think that while human brain is completely free and became sort of the separate organism during evolution, our life choices have more to do with our actual "physical" situation - environment we grow up in (in short - so-called culture, religion included), family relations, genetic predispositions etc. (they all affect our brain, of course). You may be an inner optimist (in fact, we all have the will to live, even if we are handicapped, ill, poor or simply ugly), but real life poses so many difficulties that you end up being "practical" pessimist or realist or pragmatist etc.

On the other side, our brains are also "physical" and as I said they are affected by our body fluids and outer stimuli, so maybe our minds are not that free as I believe. Well, that's where the fun starts. :D
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Fri Nov 16, 2012 18:58

I stumbled upon a very interesting post, clearly indicating (at least for me) that the person behind it is a highly intelligent being. I think it's worth spreading, especially that I rarely find such gems in web. It's part of the discussion, so there are references to others' posts - have it in mind.

"Your point about natural speech highlights the inauguration of what a word is. Words are used in explicit relation to what we want. If you want to go further into the meaning of a word, it is highly dependent on the context. If we are talking about philosophical issues, we are relating to various "concepts", "ideas" - which are all derisive of brain activity; indeed superficial at worst and far-reaching at best.

However, the major revelation of what a word is comes from our usage of speech in daily life. We always are subjugated to our biological make up. This extends to every part of our body. So when I ask for a cup of tea it is always possibly the case that I am scared (of) or attracted to the person behind the counter, and inside the meaning of a very normal request are intonations of what I really want.

I am just a harboring person in a social milieus of things to do. But, apart from this confusion everything thing we are capable of saying stems from some part of the body. Need it be said, the vocal cords are expressively intrinsic to any copulation of sound that could be deemed a word. Intention overrides whatever the word means, but the vocalization of the word, I suppose, stems from our use of it.

Our use of it boils down to a relation shared between processes in the brain and qualified uses that identify these prefixes. So, I am making very little sense here - but consider the word "transcendental". Or, more importantly the simpler forms of the word. 1) "Trans" 2) "Cen" 3) "Dent" 4) "Al". All of those - well first.

These are, yes, symbols. But only recently were they ever symbols. It is more important today for words like "transcendental" to be symbolized. Of course the effectiveness of symbology is dependent on the stimulation that the words in combination produce. Apart from the symbolic function of the word, the sound is evidently more important to it's function. It's function always relates back to the body. And in the case of interesting discussion, or if you prefer un-interesting discussion, that central point evidently should be the brain. For if one really is "using" their brain, i.e. aware of the processes going on inside the brain - like where exactly the words are pouring forth from, they are intrinsically at least attempting to produce something of philosophical importance. Knowledge, at best, is something that happens in the brain.

So if the word fails to produce meaning it is not a word. A word is an artifact of human topology that fails or succeeds as a means of survival. I am for instance, not extending my survival at all by writing any of this. However I am attempting, at least, to stimulate my own brain. Call it mental masturbation if you like. First the word was "transcend". It must have been a word that came about in utterance a long ways into the evolution of speech. At what point would the word "transcend" become useful to the ordinary day to day activities of man?

"Translate", "Transcribe" - are indicative of something telling us that the sound "trans" was beginning to have use for men as words became symbols as well as sounds. If the word always relates back to the brain, we have to examine the word "transcendental" closely. It reveals that words are allusions of sound that pass beyond our "dental" mouth boxes "transcending" the reality in my mind through the air as a combination of sounds into your mind.

It is like when someone reads a book on phenomenology and grasps the meaning of it, but then reads it at another time and is unable to grasp the meaning of it. The ideas are lofty, the methodology mixed up inside of words, but the outcome ultimately depends on the status of the reader. The readiness to engage in the purpose of the work while keeping in mind that he is, for one thing, looking at a page in a book, for another thing, not excluded thereby from reality, and for another thing, producing verbal "nofs" out of sticks, dots, and little curves. The author needs to take into consideration that words are always going to be affective at one thing - producing the sounds they are meant to represent. As to whether or not the listener or reader takes anything away from that sound, it's a relationship between the ability of the author to reach his destination - that being the purpose of his speech, and the ready-made mind-state of the reader.

Can we bridge the gap between brain-function, word sound, and lofty concept to arrive at various destinations of understanding that do not precede our own categorizations of the world? This is the boon of the way words can be used, and it is also the sour key that makes them ineffectual."
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:06

Well, I am having quite a peaceful (peaceful means "woman visits her parents") night, so I decided to collect various writings I did online during my troublesome times. They are not completely over (both times and writings :P), but I think it's time to post a bit of this and that in various places. :wink:

"Language doesnt produce meaningless nonsenses as long as people try to talk about things which really exist. Example: there are two apples on the table. So, almost every human on Earth will say: there are two apples on the table. The sad fact is that there are not two apples on the table - there is an apple and an apple. The word "two" is the nonsense, because it has nothing to do with the cruel reality and tries to simplify and classify, instead of depicting. You replace the existing objects with language names, so instead of apple and apple you now have "two apples" and, because it is easy to create meaningless words you can multiply the number of apples and finally reach the conclusion that it is possible that the "infinite" (meaningless word) number of apples exist. Since there is nothing like "two apples", because there's nothing like "two" in nature how is it possible that "infinite" number of apples exist? Things just exist by themselves and are never countable or uncountable."

"Nobody is talking nonsense, as long as he talks about things which are observable and really exist. It is obvious that there are two apples on the table, but one must be aware that he simplifies the reality with language - so we can still talk about two apples, but we must be also aware that the expression "infinite number of apples" depicts the imaginary reality that is possible to create, because our language is capable of creating them.

For example we are capable to automatically create the antonyms to almost everything. If something can be warm, something other can be cold. But is it really like that, that things are either warm or cold? They just are in this or that state, they vary in colour, temperature, density, but their physical properties aren't based on oppositions. They are never warm or cold, because these states are only the empty names, created by us to define the objects. Imagine the creature which is capable of feeling ok only in the absolute zero temperature. For such creature nothing can be "cold", because the only state it knows is absolute zero, so everything above it is "warm". So these creatures create the word "warm" for the experience of unpleasant feeling directly related to the increase of temperature of their bodies or environment. But they can't feel "cold", because there is no "cold", they are the absolute cold.

Philosophers often talk about the origins of Universe and regardless of various beliefs or theories there always come up the discussions about existence and possible state of "unexistence" (sorry, I don't know the proper English word). Why something exists? How is it possible that Universe was once only a "hot dense state" and what was outside it? It's an example of language trap, because the term "existence" is nothing more than a term depicting outside reality to which some people (thinking too much imo) automatically assign its antonym - nothingness. But what is nothingness, if not merely the word? Everything just exists. But things dont exist, because we call them "existing things", they exist regardless of our definitions and our capability of observing and analysing them. We can't observe "nothingness", because we can't observe the empty language antonym which was created by our voluntary use of language which is capable of creating pretty much any imaginary reality or object.<<<

>>>Basically, I am almost sure (almost means I would bet 100$ on my stance and maybe 5 or 10 on the opposite) that mechanics of our communication are exactly the same as in other animals, only this communication is zillions of times more complex. But not different. Dogs, birds and other animals also have their means of communication - but very limited. Evolution of humankind created powerful creatures who are capable of writing books, creating music, maintain philosophical discussions, but all this is just a very complex set of rules evolved from the simple vocalizations.

It would be great if theyve discovered some lost tribe of hominids (on Borneo, Papua or somewhere 8)), but since it's less than likely we must try to imagine how could it have been in the past. Hominids evolve, their communities become more and more complex, and so becomes communication. Slowly they learn that instead of various barks, growls etc. used in various situations (danger, hunting, sexual intercourse etc.) they can try to differentiate all these sounds slightly, producing longer or shorter, calmer or louder proto-words. Two cavemen sit in the cave and one, unexpectedly, decides that he needs a rock (I don't know why the heck he would need it, but it's not important for this discussion) and, assuming that he is able to produce a bit more intricate vocalizations he says to the second one (presumably standing lower in the hierarchy) "rock!". There are two loose rocks in the cave. So the other one understands and he brings him one of the rocks, but it appears that the first one isnt pleased, because he wanted the other rock. How to say
"the other rock"? Well, modern human can say "I want the other rock" or show what he means with his hands, but both our friends probably can't. The practical problem arises. So they again "learn" (unaware to themselves) that if they want something and they want it to be brought by someone other they can not only growl, but also point the finger at the object (it probably won't happen immediately in this case). Of course I may be wrong, because pointing objects with fingers may be the activity which they learned earlier than producing sounds which correspond to particular objects. It would be nice to know how children learn - do they first point at objects with hands or learn how to correlate the sound their mouths produce with the object they desire to possess. Or they learn both abilities in the same time.

Now, as for abstract notions? How are they born? This may sound weird, but I also think that they were born in the same way like the names of real objects. Let's come back to our cavemen, or maybe better let's observe their grandchilds. [;)] So there are again two rocks and again two cavemen, both capable of saying "rock" (or something sounding like "rock") and pointing finger at the object they want. But now both rocks lie in that way that one is further than the other one, but they lie on the same line of sight. So first caveman says "rock!" and points at the rock (in fact at both rocks). Now, specialized growl and gesture are both not enough, because both don't make the other caveman understand which rock he should bring. I don't know what happens in this very moment, but I believe this is how the abstract language notions are born. So maybe both learn with time that a louder shout "rock!" word will mean "the rock which is near" and simple and calm "rock" will mean "the rock which is behind the first rock". Who knows? But it's certain that producing the same sound with your mouth and making the same gesture is not enough in this case and going for the rock yourself each time your subordinate doesn't precisely understand what you mean gets a little tiresome with time. Again they have practical problem to solve and their verbal communication becomes with time a bit more intricate. Later comes writing. And so on.

Anyway, this shows that language for less complex organisms could have been merely a tool which can solve practical problems. So (I know it's a big jump - from cavemen and babies to the world of Socrates, Kant or Hegel), but isn't philosophy just this basic tool, only zillions of times more intricate, because we are zillions of times more complex beings and our societies are also? Philosophy, just like music, (or art in general), writing etc. are just means of communication of a highly evolved creatures with the other highly evolved creatures?

After all, whenever you write something, say something, paint a picture, play the piano - don't you want somebody other to read it, watch it, listen to it?"

"A question came to me: "what does it mean "how something works"? What does it mean "how"? :?

I, when I'm interested in something, tend to ask "why" something works in this or that way, "why" something happens. Sure, I'm not free from the "how" questions, especially when I don't understand something. But always, right after the "how" question comes the "why" question. Why do I want to know "how"? What is the nature of the question which appears to be not fixed in timespace?

Follow my thought. When you ask "why" something happens you inconsciously assume that something happens, because something happened earlier which led to the state of things which is present. It's a causal kind of question. But when you ask "how" you inconsciously try to understand/feel/experience what happens right at the very moment when you ask about it. It's like you try inconsciously to "stop" the causality.

I don't know yet how to apply this wild observation to my other thoughts, like the one that to understand philosophical problems we should understand the origins of our language and our religious thoughts and that both should be studied simultaneously.

I also think that human language can be somehow represented on some kind of graph or chart. Where questions like "how", "why", "where", "when" are represented by mathematical functions, formulas etc. In my opinion human language is largely mathematical and geometrical, because it was born in a mathematical and geometrical environment (see my post about cavemen and rocks).

For the starters you can apply my thought to the simpliest timetable. Where your plans are represented by "what" and days of the week are represented by "when".

Of course, the school timetable doesn't explain why people ask questions like "why" and "how". But at some point hominids started to ask themselves those questions, so they also must find their way into the charts."

"Body = word. Mind = meaning?

But since mind is part of the body - meaning is part of the word. Word comes first, meaning later, but it is not completely separated from the word; meaning is awereness that word was spoken.

Babies and animals produce sounds without being aware what they mean. They simply do it, because they are driven by instincts. Mature people are capable of lying (assigning different meanings to the same words), the problem is that a lie can be also easily deconstructed, so in fact lying is just the more complex baby/animal communication. The wall of "meanings" can be torn down and will reveal the naked word/sound - cry for help, will to live, lust for power."

Constructive criticism is more than welcome. 8)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:27

There's a difference between speculation and philosophy and I'm quite sorry to say that this sounds more like the former than the latter. Also, I'm a bit confused which bits were your writing and which were quotes to which you replied, which probably didn't help.

I'm afraid you're mixing language and cognition (among other things), the other limits how we can express ourselves verbally and the other what we can understand about our surroundings and ourselves. Am I talking about nonsense if I discuss unicorns? Or how about living dinosaurs? Are these creations of language? Definitely not, as I can express both ideas in many other ways than in a language.

As for antonyms, great philosophers have pondered about these in works like Discworld and the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. In Discworld, both light and darkness co-exist, darkness isn't the opposite of light and is entirely different from lack of light. In Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, the Guide Mk. II is possible to travel in time and space, because it lacks the concept of them. The point being, antonyms are just linguistical trickery and not anything that has to do with philosophy.

From physics, we know that what temperature is linked to energy (like everything else) and since it's a measure that has to be greater than zero, there is just one continuum. There is no "warm", nor "cold" - those are just perceptions of heat. Similarly, it's a very Lockean way of thinking that things have properties like "color", "temperature", "density" and other labels.

We don't have to imagine how human communication evolved, there's a lot of research on that subject. Other species, even plants, are able to co-ordinate with various signals. The key difference is our cognition, ability to memorize stuff and the ability to make decisions based on our sensory input and memory. That we're able to vocalize words better than other animals is an evolutionary trait. That we are able to form abstract ideas is an evolutionary trait, but it's not entirely unique to humans. The reason is that through evolution, humans who could coordinate survived better.

Writing books etc. has nothing to do with our ability to speak. It's a story about how humans overcame adaptation through evolution to adapting instantly by sharing experiences. Naturally the humans who could adapt faster survived better. The cavemen most definitely did not have practical problems that they overcame, it was a simple evolutionary process. Until writing, of course, but it's just a Google search away to find out that humans didn't invent writing to express ideas or language, but for book-keeping, a necessity of trading, an extension of our memory.

Babies do not evolve into adults like Pokémon, so how the cavemen learned to point and growl has nothing to do with a child's development. Also, do not confuse complexity with efficiency, or "better".

If you try to map human languages as mathematical rules, you're walking on a well-paved road. Many great thinkers have tried and failed because they assumed in a "system of the world", where everything could be reduced into a mathematical or geometrical equation. This is missing the forest for the trees, because mathematics does not exists in the nature, it only exists within our minds. It's a just tool to understand, not the what the universe actually is.

Also, as I've probably mentioned earlier, lying is not uniquely human trait. It's abdundant in the nature as a survival mechanism. You do not need vocal cords and a spoken language to lie.
Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? The guts? The determination? The five bucks? Join today!

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Dec 10, 2012 0:40

I hate you. :P
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Dec 17, 2012 0:38

I found some time to answer, finally, however answers won't be lengthy, I just want to clarify some things. 8)
Zyx wrote:There's a difference between speculation and philosophy and I'm quite sorry to say that this sounds more like the former than the latter.
Well, if you understand philosophy as proper knowledge on academic philosophy (who wrote what, who belongs to which school, who first wrote on certain subject etc.) than certainly it is not philosophy, because I never studied philosophy, neither tried to pursue its academic side. Also, this is the stance of my manager, who has DEEP knowledge on philosophy and frequently, when I exchange some thoughts with him, he says "oh, but this is very Hegelian" or "oh, this is very existentialist". If you search long enough you will probably find that whatever you think of and whatever dilemmas you have can be traced back to Plato. However it kills fun of discovering things. :D

Also, I'd love to know what do you think of the term "speculative philosophy". :P
Zyx wrote:Also, I'm a bit confused which bits were your writing and which were quotes to which you replied, which probably didn't help.
Everything is my writing.
Zyx wrote:I'm afraid you're mixing language and cognition (among other things), the other limits how we can express ourselves verbally and the other what we can understand about our surroundings and ourselves.
As you perfectly know I am not a skilled English user and I have rather poor vocabulary, so it may be part of the problem. Also have in mind, that some of these writings have been done under certain *cough* circumstances, which I don't hide. :wink:
Zyx wrote:As for antonyms, great philosophers have pondered about these in works like Discworld and the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. In Discworld, both light and darkness co-exist, darkness isn't the opposite of light and is entirely different from lack of light. In Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, the Guide Mk. II is possible to travel in time and space, because it lacks the concept of them. The point being, antonyms are just linguistical trickery and not anything that has to do with philosophy.
You know my stance on "linguistical trickery" from "singularity" topic - for example I think that infinity is just a language trick. So we don't disagree on this, however it is possible that I wrote something in one post what stands in contradiction to what I wrote in other post. See my post above. 8)
Zyx wrote:it's a very Lockean way of thinking
I wonder if this comes from Wikipedia. :wink:
Zyx wrote:We don't have to imagine how human communication evolved, there's a lot of research on that subject.
I know there is. But nobody is able/have time/wants to read everything on subject. :wink:
Zyx wrote:If you try to map human languages as mathematical rules, you're walking on a well-paved road
Certainly I try. But isn't it interesting itself why this road has been already paved?
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:25

If you search long enough you will probably find that whatever you think of and whatever dilemmas you have can be traced back to Plato. However it kills fun of discovering things. :D
Sure, but most of your questions would be answered by reading Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy, or a similar book. Even more specifically, much of the stuff in your original post is exactly what Kant wrote in his books.
Also, I'd love to know what do you think of the term "speculative philosophy". :P
Sames as for other speculative sciences, why bother reinventing a poorer wheel.
Zyx wrote:it's a very Lockean way of thinking
I wonder if this comes from Wikipedia. :wink:
Actually from high school philosophy classes from pre-Wikipedia times... :wink:
Zyx wrote:If you try to map human languages as mathematical rules, you're walking on a well-paved road
Certainly I try. But isn't it interesting itself why this road has been already paved?
[/quote]
Actually, it is. And right now history is repeating itself. Just like when Newtonian physics were discovered, people started wonder where that system of the world left room for things like a God, free will and consciousness. The power of physics seemed endless, it was able to explain so much so that many tried to extend it to things that it wasn't really suitable, eg. human language.

The exactly same thing is happening now that we have went deep into quantum physics. "Hard" scientist believe that physics can explain anything by extending what happens inside an atom, and laugh at social scientist, yet are totally unable to explain what happens in a society.
Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? The guts? The determination? The five bucks? Join today!

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Dec 17, 2012 23:55

Zyx wrote:why bother reinventing a poorer wheel.
To have a while of fun? :wink:
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:12

Speaking of fun. One browses his old posts from the past and discovers the reply (which he doesn't even remember) truly worth spreading.

"The problem with this, and I can understand your frustration, is that people in general, in the field of Philosophy and the sciences have this notion of finality; that we will at some point get to an ultimate truth and BAM! Hooray, we've done it--but after evaluating this notion, and trying to hold ourselves up to this crazy standard--we see the futility and absurdity of such an event. And then in reaction to this let down, feeling discouraged, we give up on it all--life is futile, thinking is pointless, there is no answer, no meaning and so we sink into the deep despair of nihilism. BUT! I think, and I hope a lot of you are with me when I say, this is a overreaction, life (or anything really) is a process, a progression, a continuing development--Philosophy is the conversation of our existence, a dialectic, the points it makes are contingent, and reflect how we are dealing with the world, our lives, and each other as this process changes. The notion of finality or any absolute end to inquiry is unrealistic and in all reality would we really want to figure it all out? I personally, enjoy the conversation, not that it is merely that, we make progress, meaningful progress, people just loose sight of the purpose of inquiry--so caught up in trying to find the answer we forget why we asked the question. Nothing is pointless, everything that is, by virtue of its existence has a function, even if it is a trivial one. Not that I am a quietist, inquiry serves more than a therapeutic purpose, but, and here I agree with the existentialists, no matter how deep we delve into some field of study, no matter how hard we look for an answer, it is only in regards to the human individual, even physics is a bunch of creatures scribbling on paper, making strange noises at each other, drinking coffee, sleeping etc...they might be able to explain why physically we do these things, but we are still the same beings before and after that explanation--who only exist in certain contingent ways.

Patience is a virtue, and there are answers, just no Answer (singular, capital A). Don't throw all meaning aside just because there is no glorious end to this story. I hope that helps."

People like this individual should rule the world. Why they don't? :D
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:07

Imagine the hypothetical situation of plane crash on the meadow near your home. If the plane crashed you go there and see the plane crashed and say "the plane crashed". But what if it didn't crash and it is just another warm sunny day on the meadow near your home? You can go there and say, in theory, "the plane didn't crash". Now why would you say such a thing, trying to describe an event which didnt happen? What really happened on the meadow that day when plane didn't crash? Well, the sun was shining, there was a gentle breeze, green grass and flowers around you. But you create a negation with your language, instead of saying things straight - what you see, how you perceive the world. So, hypotheses, negations and antonyms can be sometimes simple lies.

Another example. If you don't love somebody you can say "I only like you", but instead you choose to say "I don't love you". There are many ways to describe your emotional state using indicative (sometimes it can be hard, sure, because we lack proper vocabulary), but instead you use negation, since it is easier to just add NOT to already known verb, just like it is very easy to say that something is warm, in relation to something being "cold". In fact, quadrillions of tiny thingiethingies within your body (MAN) are at this very moment (call it Planck time or whatever) at a defined state (not perceptible by macro-scale beings like humans) in relation to another macro-scale bunch of tiny thingythingies (FEMALE). The state they are in is not in opposition to some other states and this state is just one of the superhyperultrazillions of states bunches of thingythingies are in this very moment around the Universe. "I don't love you" is just the human way to describe things from their perspective, just like associating snow with "being cold". I am almost sure snow isn't cold for polar bears, at least not as cold as for us. In fact it isn't cold at all, it just exists.

Since in a micro-scale, you are never stable (well, you are hypothetically stable for the shortest possible period of time, but this state is only hypothetical, even rocks are not truly stable, they are continually drained by water etc.) and you (meant as your body) are always in some relation with the outside world, another human beings etc., so you are simply unable to TRULY AGREE with somebody. Whenever somebody posts something on internet forum (for example) or you are confronted with another human on the street or you have an argument with your wife etc. etc. the chemistry of your body begins to boil. It can be called hatred, it can be called creativity, suit yourself.

As James Joyce said, only connect.

---

Criticism is welcome, as always.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Scythe
Winner of CWF review contest!
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:59
Location: Nova

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Scythe » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:01

I do not agree with you.

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6953
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Apr 04, 2013 23:29

Then you probably don't agree with the concept of heterophenomenology either. 8)

The funny thing is that I developed this approach sometime in 2005, being totally unaware that Daniel Dennett gave it the name already. My guess is long grey beards and proper age both influence world. Youngsters and girls must wait. :wink:
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Scythe
Winner of CWF review contest!
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:59
Location: Nova

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Scythe » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:54

Either you didn't get it, or you did, and I'll have to say "touché."

And snow isn't cold. It's cold relative to something. Warm relative to something else. It's just sloppy speech, shorthand we've developed because saying everything in definitions takes forever and a day. "Having a cold" isn't actually cold either. Unless you're freezing. In which case you're cold, having a cold. I have a cold. I need medicine. Something to take the edge off my sleep deprived hallucinations. Make them softer. Or colder. I'm not sure.

I'm not actually here. I'm pretty sure I'm on Mars right now. Or at least some of me is.

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Fri Apr 05, 2013 18:37

Scythe wrote:I'm not actually here. I'm pretty sure I'm on Mars right now. Or at least some of me is.
No, you're confusing yourself with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or Colin Farrell, depends.
Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? The guts? The determination? The five bucks? Join today!

Post Reply