The Philosophy Thread

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

Moderator: Crew

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 22:28

Will they get me off Rekall in time?

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

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Fri Apr 12, 2013 22:59

Just like poetry and philosophy (which are to some point languages through which we perceive the world) are capable of creating fictional abstract issues - like infinity for example - mathematics is capable of doing the same. Time, negative numbers etc. They all suit the picture the language creates, but since it is only a picture, it is not 100% faithful. Maths sure serves us, humans, makes world more accessible and allows us to make life more comfortable, allows us to invent machines etc. But it is not the ultimate truth. The concept of time may be the biggest goof humankind (and especially its elite representation - scientific community) ever committed.

If you paint a portrait of a man or make a photo, let's name him John Doe, they may serve many purposes. If John Doe commits crime his portrait and photo may be used by police to find him. It may affect, for worse or better, his self-esteem, because he might deem himself attractive or not. So these "representations" start the life of their own to some point, but they are not John Doe himself, they are only the approximate copies created by our ability of imitating things using to our advantage the fundamental forces.

Now, there is no sane human who will say that photo of John Doe is John Doe, but there are many people who will say that mathematical formula reveals the truth about the world. Sure, some pieces of puzzle stick together and let us discover Higgs bosons and other funny little things, but some may be abstract notions. From the photo of John Doe you can tell many things - colour of eyes, hair, some people may go as far as creating his psy profile, but nothing you will write about the photo of John Doe will reveal the true and complex John Doe.

Maths is only language, time MAY BE goof.
"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 Apr 12, 2013 23:46

Hostile entities seem to "engage in the game". 8)

"I'm sure the idea that some 'dualistic', non-local wave-function that doesn't seem to be either a particle or a wave can turn into a localized object like an atom, molecule, etc., may seem stupid but that's exactly what our physics tells us happens. Emergence of novel properties that could not be predicted from looking at the micro stuff is quite common. You won't find liquidity by looking at a single water molecule, etc. Again, the problem is not consciousness or the mental. The problem is that we don't know what matter is, at least at the bottom level. Zygotes are made of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of protons/electrons, electrons from more basic stuff...but at bottom level we don't know. Currently, the most fundamental entity is the wave function, whose properties are quite strange (e.g. non-locality, entanglement, etc.). So, we have no bottom base or definite conception of matter to really argue that this more basic physical stuff described by current physics or a future physics can't possibly evolve/emerge into consciousness/mind. However, I can't see a way out of this even with future revisions of physics as per Nagel's/McGinn's arguments."

"I think you have hit upon exactly what is the problem. We are travelling at the speed of light, but we are dealing with an "external" world that is almost entirely inert and only slightly animated. I think that all living creatures are spacetime beings because the only kind of localized, time and space constant description you can give of a creature would be of a dead creature (or a static model of a "live" one with arrows indicating motion). Life is a spacetime process because there is no temporally constrained (finite) acquaintence possible with the living. In my view, and of course this is radical, "consciousness" is a more highly complicated and intensified version of life (I prefer saying that conscious activity is an accelerated version of living activity). The basic processes of life happen at fluid levels based on molecular action, but as evolution has proven to us, this action intensifies over the billions of year to the point where in something like the human capacity to use a language we are basically travelling at the speed of light (in an electromagnetic sense when referring to our neurological processes). At or near these kinds of velocities the Newtonian (materialistic) model of reality begins to break down so that, in effect, living beings cannot be reduced to physicalism or pure materialism . . . the fact is that you have to KILL them/us to get the reduction to work!"

And here comes Henri Bergson with his long-forgotten philosophy. I got grade A thanks to him, during my oral maturity exam, so I guess he wasn't completely wrong. :D
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:03

eMTe wrote:Just like poetry and philosophy (which are to some point languages through which we perceive the world) are capable of creating fictional abstract issues - like infinity for example - mathematics is capable of doing the same. Time, negative numbers etc. They all suit the picture the language creates, but since it is only a picture, it is not 100% faithful. Maths sure serves us, humans, makes world more accessible and allows us to make life more comfortable, allows us to invent machines etc. But it is not the ultimate truth. The concept of time may be the biggest goof humankind (and especially its elite representation - scientific community) ever committed.
But time is not any more abstract than the three physical dimensions. We can experience and measure all four of them, but what are they exactly? And what we actually measure is the difference between two points on these four dimensions. Natural numbers are as fictional and abstract as negative numbers, just that we can see mappings between natural numbers and the world doesn't make them any more real.
Now, there is no sane human who will say that photo of John Doe is John Doe, but there are many people who will say that mathematical formula reveals the truth about the world.
What's the contradiction here? You'd point would stand if you had said that a mathematical formula is a truth about the world. A mathematical formula reveals the truth as much as a photo of John Doe reveals of John Doe. There's a fitting zen koan about not mistaking the pointing finger at the moon for the moon. (Curiously enough, only humans and dogs able to do this abstract leap. Yet, there's another koan whether a dog can have a Buddha nature...)
Sure, some pieces of puzzle stick together and let us discover Higgs bosons and other funny little things, but some may be abstract notions. From the photo of John Doe you can tell many things - colour of eyes, hair, some people may go as far as creating his psy profile, but nothing you will write about the photo of John Doe will reveal the true and complex John Doe.
What is "the true and complex John Doe"? Is it the bag of bones? Probably not, because once John Doe dies, we do not call his body John Doe. Most of his cells get replaced throughout his lifetime, yet he stays John Doe. If he loses an arm, is he still "the true and complex" John Doe? Is something about the "true and complex" revealed if I see or meet John Doe in person? Is John Doe the consciousness of John Doe? Or the sum of his body and mind? If he creates anything, like portraits of eMTe, are those parts of "the true and complex" John Doe? Is John Doe just tears in the rain?

And does it matter? Is there an absolute truth of John Doe? Is "the true and complex" John Doe just a fabrication of your mind that you have built based on your experiences of John Doe? Or is it just as incomplete representation as your portrait of him? Is there an ultimate truth, or just representations of it?
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 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 22:45

Zyx wrote:Natural numbers are as fictional and abstract as negative numbers, just that we can see mappings between natural numbers and the world doesn't make them any more real.
With this I don't disagree. Actually I wrote about it on previous page - look for "two apples".
Zyx wrote:zen
You're maybe the tenth person who uses this term in my presence, so I should start taking seriously what my friend said a couple of years ago that I am going oriental... Or maybe it's just popular nowadays to mention zen? :D
Zyx wrote:What is "the true and complex John Doe"? Is it the bag of bones? Probably not, because once John Doe dies, we do not call his body John Doe. Most of his cells get replaced throughout his lifetime, yet he stays John Doe. If he loses an arm, is he still "the true and complex" John Doe? Is something about the "true and complex" revealed if I see or meet John Doe in person? Is John Doe the consciousness of John Doe? Or the sum of his body and mind? If he creates anything, like portraits of eMTe, are those parts of "the true and complex" John Doe? Is John Doe just tears in the rain?

And does it matter? Is there an absolute truth of John Doe? Is "the true and complex" John Doe just a fabrication of your mind that you have built based on your experiences of John Doe? Or is it just as incomplete representation as your portrait of him? Is there an ultimate truth, or just representations of it?
You like to destroy philosophical debates in the same way as I do (despite me starting "philosophy" thread my actual stance towards philosophy is - well - similar to stance on Cracovia hooligans :wink:), but one thing you miss - as much as these eternally asked questions never lead to answers and you can play this game forever people ask them. Which is interesting in itself, why people do it, for centuries, millennias. This is why heterophenomelonogical approach was born. It's not perfect of course, but interesting.

My manager, who devoted all his life to philosophy, hates it and calls it "psychologisation of philosophy", but it's another subject. 8)

Also, you probably are aware that when trying to argue with philosophers you automatically switch to philosophy mode, because you try to discuss things on their conditions, using correctly (language) and cleverly (psychology) constructed sentences and - aaargh - logic. This is bad approach. Especially that you reveal that you are in fact interested in philosophy, more or less, otherwise why would you care to discuss it? :wink:

I try to use "aunt from countryside" argument as ejection seat, but unfortunately it doesnt work. 8)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Tue Apr 16, 2013 22:37

You're maybe the tenth person who uses this term in my presence, so I should start taking seriously what my friend said a couple of years ago that I am going oriental... Or maybe it's just popular nowadays to mention zen? :D
I think zen is kinda passé these days, enlightenment is overrated.
Also, you probably are aware that when trying to argue with philosophers you automatically switch to philosophy mode, because you try to discuss things on their conditions, using correctly (language) and cleverly (psychology) constructed sentences and - aaargh - logic. This is bad approach. Especially that you reveal that you are in fact interested in philosophy, more or less, otherwise why would you care to discuss it? :wink:
Maybe I just like to destroy debates? =) I'm not that interested in philosophy, but touching it is quite unavoidable once you delve into mathematics, economics, algorithms or what have you.
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 » Thu Apr 18, 2013 0:22

Well, if you open ANY modern book dealing with "humanities" disciplines (traditional like psychology, philosophy, anthropology, but also such niche disciplines like theatrology or abandonware ;)) you'll notice that they are now practically one and the same. It's not that experts in these disciplines observe mixing of various observations from formerly separate fields of interest, but they practically accepted it and some, predicting what will happen anyway, encourage the further mix-up. Example? We were recently hit by a huge delivery of books from publishing house dealing with film studies. So you pick up a book about Bunuel or Kubrick and practically every chapter you randomly read refers to everything but what a common man would link with "movie". Some chapters are philosophical, some psychological, some sociological. Movies of these fine directors are totally deconstructed.

Same goes for maths, computer programming etc. Greek philosophers were also mathematicians.

*the rest of this post remains the letter unwritten*
"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 Apr 29, 2013 1:22

My first and foremost task during the upcoming decade will be to experience the same feelings our parents and grandparents felt while living their lives.

I levelled, only a bit, in The Game but I am completely aware that you all will try to kill me.
"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 May 02, 2013 1:15

Heck, I polluted more innocent minds.

http://www.lemonamiga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10964

On the other hand, what's the difference between playing All Terrain Racing and being All Terrain Racing? :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 » Sat May 18, 2013 0:57

Afair somebody complained that it's hard to say which is the quoted opinion and which is my writing. Here things are clear I hope.
Question;

Let us imagine that a robot is made that looks exactly like you, thinks like you, makes decisions just as you think you do, forms relationships with unsuspecting others whom you would form relationships with, etc etc? Bottom line, one can't tell any differences between you and it.

What could this experiment tell you about you or anything else?
Let us imagine that a robot is made that looks exactly like the tree in your backyard, thinks like it, makes decisions just as it thinks it does, forms relationships with unsuspecting others whom it would form relationships with, etc etc? Bottom line, one can't tell any differences between the tree and robot.

What could this experiment tell the tree about the tree or anything else?

---

Aren't discussions with philosophers beautiful? They can be as pleasurable as listening to Haendel's concerti grossi Op 6 and killing bunnies. And not a bit less addictive. ^^
"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 May 18, 2013 1:07

Maybe things were clear until a few minutes ago, but what you just wrote made it extremely unclear...

Oh, and discussions with philosophy students are beyond horrible. Discussions with actual philosophers might not be, I wouldn't know. What's the difference? I'm not sure there is one, all "philosophers" probably think of themselves as "students of philosophy" - at least the ones I've met.

I could go on a real rant, but that leads nowhere. I'll go to bed instead. That actually accomplishes something.

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

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat May 18, 2013 1:36

Things are always clear, it's people who get extremely unclear with time. That's why it's better to go tree instead of going insane. It helps to achieve clarity.

Btw, since we are in the philosophy topic. This is one of the greatest posts I have discovered recently. You won't read similar posts often, because they become sort of to-be-erased knowledge. And soon posting similar posts will be probably punished by law.
"Feminism: the logical outcome of Judeo-Christian, anti-nature, anti-past, anti-world, nihilism. The secular form of this spiritual attitude, goes through Marxism and settles on humanism: the leveling of all humanity into a uniform ideal.

The preliminary sense of liberation is really a denial of one's past; a delusional casting off of what has been inherited and is determining, as it produced potentials. This "freedom" is what I call "positive nihilism", in that, contrary to the more honest nihilism proper (negation), it proposes a happy outcome, a positive result, for its world-denouncing, self-hating idealism.

Feminism is also a symptom of cultural decay, as no culture can survive it loss of destiny, as this is represented by the female. It is a cultural leveling down, which creates the illusion of a uniform interior so as to preserve control and order. Females are not really liberated from male control, but from the masculine middle-men, who were representative's of the group's common heritage, in homogeneous social unities. In heterogeneous unities, such as those produced in Globalization, or the American "melting pot," more sophisticated ethos of integrating masculine, free-radicals, and libidinal energies are in force. Female sexual choice need not be curbed so as to integrate males into the system, turning them from disruptive challengers into interested investors.

The female can now serve the dominant power directly, without intermediate representatives. In this case the alpha-male entity is abstracted into an institution: church, state, ideal etc. This relegates all males into varying positions of beta-male status. Emasculation...feminization.

Men are expected to behave as surrogate females, resulting in the beta-male sexual strategy. Being a "nice guy" is how a beta-male gains access to female reproductive promise. This is why males are the most vehement defenders of feminism. If they cannot dominate, then they settle for the feminine sexual tactics of seduction: metrosexuality, buying favors, being useful.

Shallow symbolism takes the place of substance, and since masculine dominance has been abstracted anybody can be its symbol: children, women, cripples etc. Ironically genetic fitness becomes memetic fitness, which is usually the product of surrendering to the status quo. Therefore, the natural selection process, turns to social selection, which raises to the top those males who are totally loyal and given to the institution's rules and dominance. Those males lacking the genetic markers to make them enticing to females, on a genetic, natural level, settle for social markers of "superiority", attaining memetic markers (wealth, status symbols, fame etc.), so as to compensate. Such males are reluctant to return to natural methods, because there they would be totally excluded from the gene-pool, whereas in modern western, democratic systems, being disciplined to the shared popular rules, offers them a chance to gain the social markers which would make them attractive to females, who are now programmed to seek out these markers: females being genetic filters which now are turned into memetic filters.

In conclusion: feminism is the natural outcome of a culture dominated by nihilistic ideals. Nihilism here, designating, an anti-world, anti-past, anti-nature, attitude, which proposes "corrections", and solutions to the "problem" of nature."
It's not mine, but world becomes a little brighter when you discover that there are people who thing alike and can express what you can't with your simple English. 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 » Sat May 18, 2013 9:44

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I hate. Somebody going:
I see something, it's a "logical" outcome, things are "really" like this, I can make the "conclusion" that it's a "natural" outcome.
I have a serious problem with people who talk and think(!) like that. Not to the point that I want to do them harm, but to the point where I automatically oppose what they're saying due to the tone they're using. This is how I'm unable to enter a serious discussion about any topic with these kinds of people.

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

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sun May 19, 2013 22:44

Well, I'm sure this "logical outcome" is the result of they guy's good knowledge of philosophy and, in general, history of human thought and human development.

Also, remember that people vary in their understanding and use of English, number of books they have read, their approach based on their childhood etc. Also, and this is most important [bad memes ahead] writing is secondary to thinking and feeling, so it is not as important as many think and has little influence on people. But it's good to end bad week.

As for feminism itself, I would start a separate topic instead of putting everything into vague "philosophy topic", but since forum is completely dead I have no other option. Anyway, if you want to argue on intelligent basis, you can copy/paste several of my posts and you will find where the torpedos are placed at the moment and at whom they are aimed. :wink:

All webforums should be merged if you'd ask me, but it's another topic.
"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 May 20, 2013 10:52

I'll make the amusing observation that if he'd used "soft" language with words like "theorize", "probability" or "trend", I might have been partial to listening to what he says. Instead he comes off as a cocksure, overbearing, condescending, generalizing, obnoxious know-it-all, who makes ludicrous leaps of logic. It's very convenient when he makes his own definition of nihilism.

Our choice of words makes all the difference in the world.

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

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon May 20, 2013 21:43

Maybe he's tired of postmodernist relativity (I'm convinced he is) and he just wants everything to be certain again? ;)
"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 May 25, 2013 13:17

Philosophy is nothing but search for the lost first love.

Vaguely it can be understood either as only searching or searching for love or searching for what's lost or searching for what's first.

To understand mountain, tree and locked room you must first face them and ultimately cry a little.
"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 » Sun Jun 02, 2013 23:09

Zyx wrote:why bother reinventing a poorer wheel.
Maybe reinventing the poorer wheel defines what is humane and makes "human" happy?

Way is more important than the goal, my friend.
"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 Jun 06, 2013 17:48

Thanks to the rain outside and temporary redundancy of free time I was finally able to collect my various speculations and one-liners and put them into one post. Don't have a pleasure reading! 8)

***

when you discuss the politics you have to face romantic notions (justice) with everyday reality (order). We all believe that people should be free, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences, political views etc. (this is our romantic side - belief in "justice", equality etc.), but when the morning comes we all put the different clothes and start to fight for our own safety and pretend to believe that some hierarchy exists in this world and it will eventually put us in the forefront.

---

Philosophy understood as exchanging thoughts between people is pointless if you want to reach a conclusion, because there is always a counterargument one can find for the other person's argument and so they can talk endlessly just for the pleasure of talking. One of the interlocutors may feel at some point that there's a conclusion nearby or there's already a final "theory of something", but in fact - like they say - conclusion is the point where you are tired of further thinking. And in fact that's how it is, because whatever you say or think and you consider it "final" can be immediately questioned by second party.

---

nothing what I wrote is actually what I think (...). For the sake of creative discussion I can write whatever is needed to continue it and nothing I say will be what I truly think, maybe sometimes it will.

---

Maybe philosophy is using language "for fun" by some of us just like dog puppies play, but they in fact learn how to kill prey?

---

Philosophy is using language by people who have nothing better to do with their free time to communicate with other people having the same problem.

---

The important questions are why do you, internet and this very forum user, care about the falling of a tree and, equally important - why do you make a hypothetical problem of something that you probably never experienced in your life and only read about it.

--

the deeper you dig the more you lose of the mysterious beauty. Art is similar to religion in this aspect - the more you try to "understand" it the less it becomes what it was for you when you first experienced it.

---

It turns out that the significant things are significant only if not measured.

---

maybe it is also possible to define art as experience, similarly to religious experience. Wouldn't be surprising if it was the same kind of experience in fact.

---

there are artists who remain restless or scandalous up to their final years, but there's a difference between genres. While musicians get calmer, painters (or more general: visual artists) or writers sometimes get vicious with age. It would be interesting to study why it is so. The easy explanation is that playing musical instrument consumes energy and while aging you have less and less vital powers, so you "naturally" shift into slower and calmer sounds (...). Visual arts and writing dont consume that much energy, so you can express yourself with the same energy as when you were young.

---

"logic" is a fine buzzword

---

once you start talking about possible existence of this or that deity you cannot be serious, because if it does exist it probably exists beyond our capability of describing it with written and spoken language. Talking about logic and support for this or that ideology you talk about your personal stance on religion and beliefs in this very moment of your life, but never prove existence of deity. The whole discussion in this topic can be narrowed to two sentences: "I believe that deities exist" and "I dont believe that deities exist". The question is: why some of us believe and some not. But philosophy (language) won't answer this question.

---

Atheism can be logically supported, contrary to various beliefs which become more and more schizophrenic nowadays if you take a "logical" stance. For example protestants, including Pentecostals (which I had a "pleasure" to meet). They claim that only a grown-up man can be baptized, because you must consciously invite Jesus to your heart. Taking things logically - the kid can't be a believer, because it is - hooray! - a kid and it simply "can't believe". So the existence of God, approaching protestant "logic" with agnostic/atheist logic, depends on your current state of mind and if you're a kid your mind simply hasn't developed enough to make you a believer. The logical explanation is - the God exists as long as you believe in it and it becomes sort of an imaginary deity whose existence is dependable of the development of your physical body - your brain cells etc.

In short:

If you're a kid - God doesnt exist, because you're still a kid and you cannot feel/understand/accept/whatever God's existence

If you're a grown-up - God can exist for you or cannot exist, but whether it exists or not depends on your personal "mature" decision

---

If representation/imitation of something is not art - anything can be art. Your life can be art for somebody.

Duchamp's urinal can be art. Here we had a woman who was peeling potatoes in a museum, visitors passed and watched her and she considered it an art (a very special subgenre of art - a happening). The English word "happening" is crucial to modern understanding of what is art, because it defines art as something completely different from what it was considered before XX century. It defines art as something that "just happens" or that "happens in front of eyes of visitor" etc. No longer you see an artist as somebody isolated from the world, who has a talent, who has a passion, who practises, who uses tools, learns how to use these tools other people, who is mysteriously superior to other humans. Definition of art is strongly connected with changes in society - various egalitarianisms, feminisms etc. change our understanding of what is art. Everybody can claim that something is art for her/him, because (s)he IS ALLOWED TO CLAIM IT by other members of society, so everything can be art.

---

Whether God or some other omnipotent "being" exists is one thing, but whether you believe in it or not is another thing. (...)if you don't believe you can still try to logically prove existence of God and if you believe you can also play devil's advocate and achieve the same positive result - a proof that something exists or doesn't exist.

---

I just want to know whether our kids are capable of "logically supporting" atheism.

---

39-th method to Schopenhauer's art of being right. Somebody is wrong, because he is young.

---

I hope that one day philosophy forums will be banned by the NWO government consisting of neuroscientists and we will start the whole fun again, but in underground.

---

Our civilisation and various religions on Earth are deeply affected by the presumption that deity is something standing above the physical world, that it is something more powerful that our puny beings, that it is omnipotent, omniscient etc. But what if it is otherwise - God is still in the creation. What if deity is not a state of primordiality and/or transcendence, but of infinite complexity and this complexity is yet to be born?

---

Of course this theory rejects transcendence, because transcendence is the a priori concept which is not based on anything that can be observed and is only a clever language device invented by believers to support their notions. My concept (...) defines deity as a state that can be reached rather than a state that just is.

---

Saint Paul, if he existed at all, certainly wasn't a philosopher, instead he was a believer. To be a philosopher, or simply a thinker, you must be capable of producing a thought and condradict this thought immediately after.

---

I have an aunt, simple and uneducated person. And she always tells me: go finish your studies, find better job, find a woman, get married, have children and stop talking and thinking too much.

So, is the world viewed this way philosophy or not?

---

philosophy is claiming the same what others feel, think and say, but in more sophisticated fashion

---

philosophying is the by-product of the development of human brain. Some people don't feel urge to philosophise, because their brains are either not developed enough or they live in the neighbourhood which doesn't let them think too much and they live under pressure of acting/living/being. When you're free of physical challenges of the old world - your brain starts "consuming" itself and running in circles. You begin "thinking about thinking".

---

Masses in the past werent educated and had no personal freedoms - these privileges were limited to a very small number of folks. These stood out with their ability of providing "agonizing thoughts". Today, billions of people can read, write, use internet and complex machines and are free to express themselves. Brains of many more people are highly developed. How many people (if you take citizens of medieval Europe, including peasants, but also scholars) would understand Aquinas' thought and how many would understand Hegel or Schopenauer a couple of centuries later? Now an average teenager can understand it and probably majority of high school students in developed countries. The culture of our interactions changed and more people can play the "agonizing thoughts" game.

---

Imagine two philosophers. One of them has something important to say, but he feels too shy to do it. The other one is also shy, but he wants to say exactly the same words. They don't know themselves, neither in real-life, nor via Facebook etc. One day both of them (still unaware that the other one exists) post an important (for them) message on internet forum. The other one never reads it, because they both frequent different forums. One forum is positive about what he says and, despite some minor struggles, he becomes a philosophy star. The other forum is sceptic and they force the guy to abandon his investigations and he truly abandons them, falling into oblivion.

---

I think that human perception of "beauty" is directly related with colours and shapes. In short - an object or landscape is perceived as beautiful in most cases when it is bright and round rather than when it's dark and sharp-edged. Just like flowers turn to sun our biology prompts us to seek for bright objects (sun etc.) and round objects (pregnant women etc.) which usually represent something vital, while sharp or dark objects are connected with danger, death or nothingness (predators' claws or teeth, state of lifelessness etc.). Of course there are art genres like turpism whose admiration can be probably linked with people with various disorders, but in general humans seek for, I repeat this, round and bright objects.

---

when you post something on webforum (or simply talk to somebody in real life) you seek interlocutors' acceptance, rarely you simply say what you want to say, because you consider it important to say. It can be explained partially by the inclination of society to treat people who simply speak what they experience as madmans, so one rarely decides to say what he really feels or thinks, because your participation in society is largely a game - in most cases you lie, because there's no other option you can be considered a full member of society.

---

I believe that all the discussions on these forums can be narrowed to simple talking patterns

---

we seem to talk about visual beauty. blind people can't see and some cannot even imagine colours and shapes, because they were born blind, so it leads to the conclusion that beauty in general (if you're blind let's assume that it is some kind of phonic beauty which we healthy people also experience) is somehow related with pleasure. So what is pleasurable for somebody (not only painting or building, but also Beethoven's symphony or The Pixies record) is also beautiful.

---

Question. If, as I said, perception of beauty is somehow related with the dualism sun/darkness, life/nothingness etc. is it possible that when you're born in an imaginary hostile and ugly environment (some kind of Mexico suburb or something) and for the whole life receive only such stimuli, being completely unaware of the existence of peaceful colourful world you won't perceive as beautiful death, violence, blood and clash of steel, but feel nostalgia for inexplicable "something"?

Btw, to know how blind person feels beauty it is probably best to ask the blind person or simply google - I bet there are answers to such questions and maybe even a multitude of studies. Another interesting issue is how deafblind people define "beauty". Touching the teddy bear? It would mean that beauty is simply a pleasurable feeling involving the senses currently available for a person.

---

Philosophy is purely the language discipline. You discuss abstract notions which were created, because your ability to use language allows you to create them. If there wasnt a single human on Earth the "sense of existence" idea werent exist also, because there would be nobody who can create it, name it and discuss it. Philosophy as a discipline is an artificial creation, just like roads and buildings (the difference is that while the latter creations are useful - philosophy is completely useless) which exist only because there are creatures who can build them.

---

Infinity has two faces - the "intuitive" one and the mathematical one. In maths it looks as something fairly simple, because it is described with one letter, an empty symbol that doesnt show at all, just like maths in general doesnt say anything about anything, WHAT infinity is - it only shows that such concept can exist and you can use it to make fancy quotations. Now, when you try to UNDERSTAND what is infinity - here comes the problem, because you can't. You can probably IMAGINE yourself sitting and watching at the sky and thinking - ok, so this all is infinite, imagine yourself flying to the sky, straight ahead, feeling the breeze of air etc., looking at all the clouds, then stars, the whole galaxies etc. and so you fly and fly and fly and this flight lasts FOREVER, because the space is INFINITE. Wait, but how something can last FOREVER and what the f**k it means?

Both concepts - INFINITY and ETERNITY are like ebony and ivory. You cannot understand what is INFINITY if you don't live FOREVER, because if you want to visit the INFINITE universe during your flight you MUST live FOREVER. But, somebody might say, it is still not enough, because when you fly over the INFINITE Universe you are still only at one place at a single moment, so how can you be EVERYWHERE if something has UNLIMITED number of WHERE's? Your debater answers: ok, so if the universe can be infinite I can imagine the creature which is both infinite and ETERNAL, so it lived since ALWAYS, lives EVERYWHERE and will live ETERNALLY, being ALWAYS EVERYWHERE and, of course, FOREVER. And so you are trapped in the eternal conundrum, a game (but the fun game!) involving creative use of various nominatives, adverbs and adjectives.

I think, my cute philosophying fellas, that you should consider moving the infinity dream to the poetry field, where it in fact belongs.

---

I feel that people don't vary that much in terms of feelings, goals they pursue, certain aspects of biology which make them act like this or that and say this or that etc. So if you say that definition of beauty is impossible to establish I say "probably you're right", but I also feel obliged to ask: "if we're all humans why we don't perceive things alike"?

---
by "too clear mind" you mean too closed-minded?
Yup. 8)

---

How can you walk or cross something that doesnt exist? I can as well tell you to catch a smurf and ask you whether it was hard task or not.

---

majority of your output on this forum and majority of output of "great" philosophers has no sense (...) They're fun as mind exercises though, similarly to playing chess, scrabble, sudoku or point'n'click adventure games.

---

philosophying is like spitting in the face of a common human. We know that we are all just humans, but some of us decide to choose "the different way of life" and start bullying others just because we have read more books, have been raised in a peaceful environment, "feel" that we know "more".

---

In fact I'm not really interested in what you or me just said, but why we did try to communicate. I can write a total bullshit and I am capable of producing the sentences which are completely absurd and I am capable of thinking one thing and writing another, just to test you.

---

Sure science has a debt to philosophy, but it can be also said the other way around, because various activities of humans frequently intersect. So it is justifiable to say that certain philosophical ideas might have inspired certain practical inventions or general pursuit for knowledge in medicine, physics, biology, astronomy etc., but it is also justifiable to say that the latter ones inspired philosophy. Stick never has one end. Anyway, it is hard to believe how philosophy, which was in the past ages practiced by a small number of people could have affected the technological advance of humankind in general. Sure, some philosophers were also mathematicians, physicians, engineers etc. but the limited availability of their works and huge illiteracy amongst masses make me conclude that you overestimate the influence of philosophers on any kind of broadly understood "advance". I think everyday basic needs of simple people had bigger influence on scientific knowledge. And if you look closer, the biggest technological advance came in XX century, the same century in which philosophy practically ceased to exist and converted, partially into neuroscience, partially into postmodernist chaos.

---

Now as for topic, it is important for me not only what somebody says, but how he does it and why he does it. Imagine that you're sitting in a chair with various electrodes, cables, monitors and any kind of futuristic stuff you can imagine sticked into all holes and organs of your body. Your interlocutor is sitting in the similar chair. On the monitor you both see the data about your opponent, produced on the fly. Temperature of his body, echo of his heart, blood pressure, chemical composition in his intestines, tomography of the brain. Also, you are both equipped with a huge dossier about the opponent. History of his life, his dreams, his hidden desires, things he is ashamed of, professional psychological profile, information about books he read, places he visited and you also have access to the recordings of all the conversations he ever made in his life (I don't know how would you absorb this knowledge though). Anyway, now one of the philosophers says:

"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us should have to be assumed merely on faith and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."

Of course he can also say "I lost my car keys today and had to catch the bus".

Now, wouldn't such a philosophical debate be fun? It would certainly demystify some of "philosophical" mysteries. ;)

---

What remains of our history up to recent centuries is usually eccentric, innovative, extraordinary, groundbreaking or simply an emanation of power. So we are taught in schools about kings, mathematicians, philosophers, spiritual or military leaders, genocides, comet sightings, pandemics etc. But when it comes to the short and usually dull life of ordinary man philosophy has nothing to say.

---

Language and communication in general are capable of producing outright lies and thus they should be abandoned.

---

Sorry, I didn't want to offend you.

Or did I? Who knows?

---

You can say that you stick with something as hard and loud as you can, but ultimately you stick only with what was once beautifully called Zeitgeist. You can read about modernism and pretend to claim what they claimed on various subjects, but it all makes you only a fake copy

---

never be afraid of saying weird or illogical things, just in case they become a serious branch of human activity in future

---

How can human language (formerly called philosophy) explain science if it has in recent decades become the subject of scientific investigations itself?

---

quantum field is a communication field

---

it is a bit unfair to refer to movements which are hundred(s) years old while living in present, confusing times. I may be fascinated with Victorian England or rococo ballroom fashion, but collecting steampunk jewelry and buying albums about Versaille doesn't make me a part of what I am fascinated with. Sadly, we belong only to the present.

---

Beauty is the opposition of philosophy.

---

/in response to idiotic topic named "Can infinity go backwards on a timeline, and if so, how?"/

Another poetry topic.

Can continuity be discontinued?

Can infinity be finite?

Can beginning end before it begins?

Can carrot become a cucumber?

Also, isn't it possibly harmful - to go backwards on timeline? I know it's only philosophy forum, but you should be more careful with creating and posting in such topics - what if somebody tries it and won't return? Are you prepared to explain yourself to his family and FBI?

---

The difference is always what we don't know yet.

---

the only difference between the rock, the tree, the amoeba, the chimpanzee and human lies in the complexity of the system and chemical compositions of these organisms. Human may be the most advanced "living" being, while rock may just lie still without being aware that it is rock, but basics remain the same.

---

in 2512 (it may also be in 2103 or 67890) people won't have anything better to do than analysing the number of all possible "events" (including all possible hyper-extra positions of particles zillions of times smaller than already discovered ones

---
What happens to us when we die?
What happens to the tree when it dies?

---

There's not much difference between members of philosophy internet forums or Amazon tribes. (...) the only difference is the complexity of the minds. So you, me, Amazon tribes mentioned above, chimpanzees, amoebas and even rocks "speak" in fact in the same "language" which will be in not so far future reduced to chemical reactions and in far future to interactions on levels so low that it is hard to imagine nowadays.

---

what is the purpose of this topic? You try to "thought-provoke" somebody to look for patterns and keywords in his answer, but since this is only internet you can't outright attack your male opponent and mate with female. However, you can use your opponent's replies to your advantage and re-use them in other forums to provoke even more self-exposing answers.

The question is - will you ever use this knowledge in real life?

---

the postmodernist would say "2+2=5" and if you don't agree you are old, stupid, you don't understand that I had troublesome childhood and government did nothing to help me find the proper job and beautiful girlfriend and I will kill you during my upcoming killing spree.

Now, that's modern logic. How to discuss it?

---

Each question has one simple answer if you're not a philosopher.

---

you tell the truth even when you lie, because whatever you do in a milisecond - be it an act of breathing, raising hand, praying to God, thinking about lost love, turning the steering wheel, speaking a lie - your act is purely biological and predictable (but so complex that humankind haven't found a scientific explanation for all such acts and still refer to them by means of religion and philosophy)

---

it's hard to discuss something when somebody thinks that he uses his language to discuss problems while his interlocutor is assured that language itself is the problem and we only lay traps on ourselves rather than discussing anything.

---

how does metaphysics (or epistemology, if you can explain it to me also, please) look like and where can I find it to see it. Further questions are: how does it sound, how does it smell and is it pleasurable to touch? I hope you can help me with these questions. Thanks in advance for all your answers!

---

metaphysics is simply equal to ignorance

---

With the quickly raising level of education, globalisation, internet, more and more people become aware that there's nothing on this world than physicality. I'm not sure that people are prepared for the truth that there's nothing "beyond" and annihilation of spirituality. So the uncovered truth that everything can be downgraded to particles and their interactions is from one side fascinating and it is fascinating to infect more and more people with this knowledge, but from second side the fact that mystery which was for ages the major component of beauty, art, spirituality, happiness etc. is no more - scares.

Postman was right, we're turning into machines. Language will eventually become as obsolete as first became hierarchical dependences between people and now becomes spirituality.

But is it avoidable? No. We're just links in the eternal evolution chain. After several hundreds years our grand grand children with their bionic limbs, brain chips and drugs won't bother with questions like this. There will never be any questions, we'll turn into almost perfectly productive, unfeeling machines.

---

there's nothing wrong with racism, sexism, xenophobia and other politically incorrect notions as long as the truths about humankind are being kept within closed circles of scientists and philosophers. (...) What will happen with this knowledge in incorrect hands and in internet times I don't know. YouTube for example, became the primary transmitter of hatred.

I personally believe that world is diverse and everybody has to find its place on it, however I am sceptical about forced tries to make all its manifestations equal. It will not work in long-term period. Nuances and disparities will let us hear about themselves sooner or later.

---

Behind usage of any word there is NEED to use it. Whenever you say something it's because your complex body chemistry decided to use it. Therefore, to understand natural language (or various languages) science must look for the answer WHY the word was used, not WHAT is the meaning of it.

---

I know how an apple looks like. We all know and nobody, surprisingly, tries to persuade others to believe that apples exist. Now, all of a sudden, a group of people called philosophers comes and says "there's something called metaphysics". I cannot see it, smell it, hear it, feel it, taste it or experience it otherwise. Should I believe that metaphysics exists, just because you tell me it does? I can as well believe in UFO, New World Order and Jesus Christ.

---

Is zygote physical being? Then tell me at which point there goes "click" and all of a sudden it separates into "mind" and "body"?

---

meaning is awereness that word was spoken

---

What is "biography of president Lincoln"? Widely understood it's the sum of various parts: books written about him, impact he left on his environment, memory about him. When you now think of president Lincoln you think about him with your brain, which is perfectly physical being, just like your neurons and memory are. When you say "president Lincoln" you use your mouth (physical being) and produce sound (physical being). When you write "president Lincoln" you use your hand (physical being) and let another person use his/her eyes to read it (eyes are physical beings, light is physical being). So if you gather all these things loosely related to "biography of president Lincoln" and even add every particle which ever touched him or he did touch and which possibly created butterfly effect one hundred years later, and if you add his bones and worms who ate his rotting flesh and animals who later ate these worms and people who later ate these animals and who therefore carried part of Lincoln and his biography insides themselves (not to mention that they handed down tiny bits of Lincoln to their progeny) you will never be able to say that whatever is even in the loosest sense related to "biography of president Lincoln" is not material.

---

The idea that language influences thought is as ingenious as discovery that wall colour affects your mood. Of course entities influence one another to some degree. However not all determine one another - language doesn't determine thought. Language is just a humble squire.

---

language is just an advanced system of interaction between complex sets of particles(...)

(...)instead of talking about words and meanings we should start talking about interactions in general. What is interaction? Why and how clashes between primitive or complex organisms become "language" at some point and is human "language" really more efficient or so highly advanced in comparison with other means of communication?

---

beauty is sex, beauty equals survival

---

When you, for example, cross the bridge you just cross it. Unless you have obsessive-compulsive disorder which forces you to think about the safety of crossing - you take into account the material it was built of, air temperature, wind speed, height and all existing options that something will go wrong. But majority of people just cross it to get on the other side.

---

Now, why bother thinking what life is, what is the purpose. Why don't just live?

---

madness is extreme self-awareness

---

you hate somebody not because he is of the different opinion, comes from different religion, cultural background etc. Hatred comes from Universe structure.

---

People constantly don't agree with the preceeding speakers. Whatever you say you can bet the next person will say something opposite to your statements. Or at least will try.

---

Still no proof that things can come in threes or twelves.

---

Now, from when "sex with drunk women" is philosophical topic?

---

history of philosophy is history of human ignorance

---

Let's make children and animals equal with everybody, let's tear down all hierarchies, let's make vertical structures horizontal, let's all smoke grass, become unite and stay happy.

The problem is that history teaches us that leftist utopias usually lead to huge disasters. On smaller scale, they create breiviks.

The only acceptable approach to life is mild conservatism.

---

You are never neutral. Neutrality is hypothetical state which is never achieved, because the world in micro-scale is in constant motion. Since you are the macro structure you are unable to observe all these tiny little thingies inside you bouncing back and forth, thus you develop false belief (it is false, but it is at the same time natural for humans) that worldviews are stable. In fact, your body makes small decisions within Planck time.(...)

---

being on prescripted drugs will be required by governments, otherwise developed countries will cease to exist.

Information overflow experienced by many internet users (human brains are currently incapable of dealing with information overflow) together with obesity (caused by junk food and diabetes) and general leftist welfare (understood as doing completely nothing, because state will take care of you anyway no matter who you are) will lead to depressive states, asexual behaviour (I can achieve nothing, because I am nobody and I am ugly) and slow dissolution of our civilisation.

In not so nearby future (2035? 2065?) being on drugs will be a requirement in Germany, UK, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada and Australia. China and US will oppose obligatory prescription drugs for school kids.

---

you must simply become me (in theory) to agree with me or just understand me

---

Coining funny terms and then searching for answers what they are, what they mean and do they mean the same to everybody around was indeed an original way of living a life for philosophers. And still is(...)

You won't get into direct contact with Being, unless you understand contact as looking at the word Being written on paper. You are more likely to be eaten by a grue.

---

The process of finding answers and solutions can be enriching. Revolving around the same, unanswerable, questions may be, on medical ground, closer to autism than any kind of productive brain activity.

---

There's a flood of books about neuroscience, various cognitive sciences etc. Soon we will be buying books (as Christmas gifts for our children) titled "neuroscience for kids" or Larousse's "1001 facts about cognitive functions of your brain".

The problem is, and this is - as usual - my deep inner gut centrist feeling that all these books tell more about our process of understanding, rather than about us (meant as the buyers of the book at the moment when we bought the book). When you become aware how your body and your brain works you are no longer the same person, because you start to view the world (and yourself) differently. Thus you find yourself caught in a strange loop. You wanted to learn something about you, but what you learned is no longer applicable to the person you was before reading the book.

---

The idea that living organism originating from zygote and built of periodic table elements later turns into sort of dualistic entity is so overtly stupid that it could have been born only in brains of philosophers.

---

the concept of time will fall together with the concept of mind/body dualism. By together I mean they will fall at the same time

---

The more time you spend in internet the more various ideas attack you from all sides, therefore you experience the feeling that world around you is rapidly changing and everything is "in flux". Take a month off computer and you'll see that dynamics of "world" slows down and people on the street are much more conservative than internet suggests.

---

the more you'll try to "visualise" the less you'll understand, because all these spacetime related subjects including big bangs, inflations, expansions, manifolds etc. are merely mathematical models and they cannot be presented in graphical form. Good example is the concept of metric expansion of space, which is totally impossible to grasp for a human being used to surrounding world with directions, lengths etc. It is probably more understandable for skilled mathematician, but even they don't "see" it, they probably simply admire beauty of symbols and equations.

---

If you were formerly an atheist and now you are believer when you were right?

---

Like all philosophical notions objectivity and neutrality indeed do exist for philosophers, because they care to talk about these subjects. Certainly they don't exist for trees or stones(...).

We don't have to imagine the world without philosophers; Universe experienced quite a long human-free period during its existence. How do you think - did objectivity and neutrality exist one milisecond after Big Bang or during, for example, Permian?

---

psychologization of philosophy is imminent and unavoidable. The formerly fundamental question in discourse (not only philosophical) "what you said" is being replaced with "why you said what you said". This puts in question the very sense of using such words like "meaning" and "sense" (among others), because it may become obvious, with time, that pretty much everything what you say or do has its roots either in your past or/and in the anatomy of your brain and rest of your body. Thus more interesting (at least for scientists) will be searching for roots of what you say or how you act instead of trying to understand what is the meaning or value of what you say and how you act IN THE PRESENT TIME. This may paralyze discourse and various human actions, to some degree.

Heterophenomenological approach always reminds me of Nazi experiments.

---

Trying to justify your will to live or taking your life away with logical arguments is futile, because one does not take the decision under influence of webforum discussion. You are in this or another emotional state and you simply do it or not. Words, especially written ones, have little influence on people

---

If you formerly had some view on some topic and later you switched to the opposite stance when you were right?

The story. In secondary school I had a friend, a very sensitive and intelligent person, but rather "slow" in actions, so he was bullied by teachers. He was a devoted fan of Michael Jackson and Star Wars, not very unusual interests for a teenager and he looked quite normal, like any other teenager. After school our ways parted, as it frequently happens, we moved to different cities etc. However in the age of internet and social websites he has found me and added me as a friend on one of such websites (it was before Facebook, yes kids, there were times without Facebook). I barely recognized him, because he looked like a Woodstock hippie, he had colourful clothes, long dreads and posted cryptic messages about love and happiness. Quite a change, but it's still not unusual; you exchange small town for big city, you find new friends, you mature, you develop personal philosophy etc.

However after maybe two years something clicked inside his brain and he changed his persona again. To the point that he posted shower pictures showing him shaving hair with razor. Again, nothing unusual in internet exhibitionist times. But something else is interesting.

What's on my mind is that people who switch so easily between various ideologies, unconsciously ridicule ideologies in general. Because it appears that it is not ideology which counts, but the emotional state you're into decides how you act, what you say and wear. Ideology is secondary to biology and none of them is actually "right" or "good" itself, because it gets fitted to individual's desires.

Imagine a gay person who had to hold his preferences in secret during school. Now, in his twenties, when he lives in big city and in more tolerant and mixed environment he no longer keeps his homosexuality as secret, but it is natural that he will lean towards various leftist ideologies, because they promise him personal safety. "Survival of the fittest" is never considered by him as possible personal stance, not because it is not grounded in logic or he has perfect counterarguments against it, but because it is HOSTILE to him.

Similarly, an unattractive girl, who was never surrounded by hoards of drooling adolescent males is more prone to promote feminist and gender theories in her adult future. And again, she will not promote them, because they are wise, peaceful and up-to-date, instead they make perfect excuse and help her cope with life.

---

I despise people who had a doubtful pleasure of being born before next generations, yet they had tried to cope with the world knowing much less than we do. Therefore I despise Kierkegaard.

---

The major problem with feminism, as somebody wise said, is that it is the greatest nobilitation of masculinity. What's the better nobilitation of male than showing how insistently you desire to become one?

---

current rightist tendencies observable in many developed countries are the result of leftist (feminist) tendencies pushed a bit too far ("too far" is actually not good expression, because they will be pushed even further undoubtedly, it would be better to say "too quick for some") and societies, unconsciously, turn back slightly

---

Dualism is the natural consequence of causality.

---

Philosophers tend to apply their views to whole humankind. This is in my opinion false thinking, because not everybody is philosopher and not everybody hurts just because he lives. There are many (actually it's majority) people around the world, especially in third world countries who fight to survive and they have no time to ponder about various truths and paradoxes, yet philosophers tend to believe that philosophical problems, especially their depressions and melancholies, are universal. Maybe they are universal to philosophers, but certainly not to every human.

---

Let us imagine that a robot is made that looks exactly like the tree in your backyard, thinks like it, makes decisions just as it thinks it does, forms relationships with unsuspecting others whom it would form relationships with, etc etc? Bottom line, one can't tell any differences between the tree and robot.

What could this experiment tell the tree about the tree or anything else?

---

they always create endless topics about the same words. They never discuss the problem of grue or argue about importance of xinijxt. Always these damn infinities and existences.

---

Kids are cruel and cruelty usually means truth.

---

Communism as political system wasn't a "concept", it sort of developed naturally in countries which didn't have proper and numerous enough burgeoisie who would be able to prevent peasants from revolting against aristocracy. As a doctrine it really doesn't matter who invented it or who supported it, because doctrines and political systems they "influence" rarely have much in common. Like the old joke says, if Marx lived in times of Lenin he wouldn't be marxist.

---

the root cause of women's "lesser" status is, to put simply, being a woman. Chair is not a tree, stone is not a car, loudspeaker is not a soap. Female is not a male.

Economic systems are not powerful enough to undermine biology.

Also, females are not "lesser", they are the natural complement of males. Leftists should stop viewing the world as the chaotic space full of aimlessly floating egoistical creatures. Some of the puzzle pieces stick together, really, and it is not important if they are equal or not equal, they are simply happier when being together than when being not.

---

Dialogue is two-faced man's name for war.
"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 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 23:33

Consciousness, language and relativity act as mirrors in funhouse, making us believe that Universe is more complex than it really is.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

Post Reply