~mindless philosophy~

J

jlabrec

Registered Member
Philosopher, a definition in my opinion: one who questions everything, believes nothing, is generally uncertain.

Some claim to study philosophy, they unfortunately just parrot the writings or thoughts of histories greats. I wonder if this is truly the mark of one trying to come to terms with the world around them.

The whys, what ifs, hows, and other simple minded questions have been answered countless times through the course of human self realization.

The purpose of philosophy is to promote thought, and ultimately self growth. Can we ever grow further than what we've already studied or learned thus far?

Here's something to promote thought...
take for a moment the oximorons of the English language:

the wrong right
simply complex
the light of darkness
the good evil

... etc.
 
Philosopher = one who studies philosophy.
Philosophy = the persuit of knowledge through logical reasoning


"The purpose of philosophy is to promote thought, and ultimately self growth"

Hm, consider yourself a philosopher and yet are suggesting that philosophy has the same purpose for every one?


"Can we ever grow further than what we've already studied or learned thus far?"

Uh, yes.


"take for a moment the oximorons of the English language:

the wrong right
simply complex
the light of darkness
the good evil"

BIG SMALL!
FAST SLOW!
SMART IDIOT!

Wow!! It sure is fun to put words together!!!!
How in god's name does this "promote thought". Oooooooh! Our language is capable of expressing ideas! And some of those ideas are the contradiction of others!! FREAKY!
 
Damn that was harsh. Sorry jlabrec... it happens. I believe (and I've only been here a few months) we get a little jaded here at sciforums. It's easy to do because there's SO much bullshit to wade through. Usually, it's someone else apologizing to ME for railing on someone else, so this time I thought I'd step up. Oh, and welcome to sciforums... it's a great place... as far as I can tell, it's the closest thing to an actual online community I've been subjected to.... ups and downs and whatnot ya know. We're a bit of a moody crowd as well. Have fun, and I swear I've seen Tyler being nice before... :D
 
heh, lost in the world of cyberspace text messages.

it often has entertained me that some people can take so seriously their own self worth. how much of a difference can one person truly make? or more correctly, how long can their difference matter?

i've been in one place, spreading my own beliefs and thoughts, for so long. look what i've accomplished, the ability to lose my temper with someone, whose words don't agree with me.

society is filled with so much bloated intellegence. measure your own worth next to that of anyone else. is your's anymore grand? heh, if you've answered yes, then you have just added to society's filling.

everyone needs a ripping now and then. thanks tyler. its been a while since someone has lost themselves upon me. what do i learn from this? to think prior to the enter key? to find a hole to crawl into and remove myself further from the world around me? to lose myself further to endless thought? to hate those i do not understand? to become far more cruel then i already was? to hate myself? to perhaps question my own worth? to question my own intellect? to wonder where i stand against another person's mind.

what am i to do, thanks to tyler's expression of mindless philosophy? look how he reacted to a sleep deprived, factory worker's words. heh, look what may be come of me. my the paradox you've managed to create. here is the potential to cause another person, to explore possibilities that were never before there, in their mind. are you pleased with yourself tyler? look over your shoulder from now on, wonder at the possibility of a face to face meeting with a complete stranger. pretend that it may never happen. you've open the door to a potential darkness. thank you tyler.







heh.... nah. i'm not that easy. tyler, fuck you. i'm sorry that you've been around in sci forums so long that you've become full of yourself. i'm sorry that you've reached the pinnacle of your own growth.

thanks for the welcome wes.
 
I'm not going to apologize for ripping up your post. I will, however, admit that I could have done it in a much more civil manner.

That said......


"thanks tyler. its been a while since someone has lost themselves upon me."

Hmm. If you consider what I just did loosing myself you're not much going to enjoy sciforums.


"what do i learn from this?"

Hopefull three things, which I will get to in a sec.


"look how he reacted to a sleep deprived, factory worker's words"

Ones situation is rarely a good excuse for their philosophical queries, or lack thereof. Many a philosopher has made do with much less than you, or I, have.


"look over your shoulder from now on, wonder at the possibility of a face to face meeting with a complete stranger. pretend that it may never happen. you've open the door to a potential darkness. thank you tyler."

I'm afraid I don't understand this little bit at all.


"tyler, fuck you. i'm sorry that you've been around in sci forums so long that you've become full of yourself."

What did I say that makes you think I'm full of myself?


"i'm sorry that you've reached the pinnacle of your own growth"

Actually, I said nothing of that sort and I'll thank you very kindly not to make up lies, hm? In fact, I said something of the opposite.

Now, seeing as you actually didn't address anything I said, I'll go over it again:


1) I explained what a philosopher is. While you expressed a rather ambiguous and subjective definition I gave you, basically, a dictionary definition. Life is much, much simpler if we all are talking in the same language.

2) You proposed that philosophy had a "purpose" which was in no way implied by it's definition or history. On top of that, you implied that it was an objective "purpose". I called you on that.

3) You asked a question; "Can we ever grow further than what we've already studied or learned thus far?" - I replied with the affirmative. (N.B. - this is where I basically said I've not reached any limit of personal growth. You know, that thing you claimed I said the exact opposite of a minute ago!).

4) You said that putting two words that contradict each other next to each other makes you think. I mocked that because it is, frankly, a stupid comment. There are things on earth which are opposites. Our language represents reality. Thus there will be words that are opposites. It's really not an interesting thing at all.
 
just wanted to correct myself earlier.. was trying to say that I'm usually the one having to apologize for having ripped on someone... think I typed it fucked up.
 
philosophy - as per the webster's dictionary - the pursuit of wisdom. search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.

hmmm sounds to me by this definition, any thought, belief, or idea that promotes even the vaguest thought or speculation, falls under philosophy.

how much time did you spend coming up with another post? did you not have to think about what you were to reply? seems to me you had to pick apart my post. this would imply that you are speculating your understanding of what i wrote. perhaps its possible you have absolutely no understanding of what i wrote at all. you are left to assume that you possess the knowledge to make sense of my writing. heh... i don't even understand me at times.

here's something that also tends to entertain me about these various forums. you folks like to quote eachother a lot. the entertaining part of it, is the fact that you all tend to only quote a small portion of what a person writes. in my opinion, the entire post is what makes up a person's expression of self. when only a small portion is seen, those who read your post, are only getting your views on what the other person has written.

see... the part of my post you failed to quote, that made up the bulk of what i was saying, that being useless banter, was: "Heh, nah... i'm not that easy." your post was successful in pissing me off. while i was madly pressing away at the keys, i cooled off. this small phrase was perhaps the only thing in my post that really mattered.

pride is a terrible substitute for intellegence. i have much pride, whether or not it is warranted at times.
 
jlabrec:
I asked you to refrain from posting flame bait. If you can't communicate, perhaps you'd be best off on AOL forums.

This is too awfully funny.
 
Okay jlabrec. I don't mean to be rude but you've addressed none of the points presented to you. We will get nowhere if you insist on talking like this. So, just to let you know, I probably won't be replying to anything you write until you actually reply to points made.
 
Quote:
pride is a terrible substitute for intellegence. i have much pride, whether or not it is warranted at times.

.
The problem with this statement of Philosophy is that you are starting with the wrong premise.....
Pride is based on negative intellectual thought patterns, so therefore you are starting from a falsehood , deception ,non-sequiter...how could get to the truth!.
Philosophy - - the pursuit of wisdom. search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means the art of philosophy is to start with reality/truth..thought and to proceed onto a metaphysical plain..only a person with true wisdom understands the duelistic answers of people in darkness(ignorance)

:cool:
 
Perhaps if you would stop for a minute and just think on the title of this topic, you'd come to understand what I'm trying to do.

I am not trying to debate anything here. Yet, you insist on forcing me to. I am trying to create "mindless philosophy."

Xev, I respect the fact that you are a moderator of sciforums. I'm not certain that your mannerisms promote good interpersonal skills. To assume that I would best be suited for AOL forums, is a comment that seems to imply, that those such forums are in far less a vaule to those that have been created here. Hmph, perhaps Wes was correct in mentioning that this place tends to create in its users, a sense of jadedness. Could you possibly make a bit more sense of the phrase flame bait? That sounds like some kind of chat room dialect, and simply leaves me in the dark, since I don't speak your language here in sciforums.

Tyler, philosophy by its very nature is objective. How can one pursue widom, without widom being the object of their pursuit. How can you attempt to achieve answers to the mysteries of reality and life, without those very items being the object of your search? Philosophy perhaps more correctly creates objectivity. To say that philosophy refrains from having purpose; well in my opinion, the very thing that speculation is derived from, that is just foolish. I think you've lost sight and meaning of the word philosophy.

Tyler, you also mentioned that one's situation, as you put it, was rarely an excuse for their philosophical queries. I don't agree with you. I think that one's situation can dramatically effect the way they view all things. That being said, it is possible to believe that my working in a factory, and having little sleep, can and often does change the way in which I persue wisdom.

Can we ever grow further than what we've learned and studied thusfar? I do not believe so. What possible thoughts, expressions, ideas, understandings, or general wisdoms can be derived, that have not already been mulled over once before. What can a person truly learn from constantly picking apart lifes mysteries, when someone else has probably already achieved the same thought they will eventually reach. It seems you are looking at this statement plainly as it is written, I am looking to this question in a philosophical sense. Now to look at the question logically, my reply would simply be, "well duh!!!." Which is not far off from the way you replied to it the first time.

Logic and philosophy are not to be used together. Logic is based on fact. Where philosophy, the search for understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means, by definition implies that fact does not play an important part.
 
"To say that philosophy refrains from having purpose; well in my opinion, the very thing that speculation is derived from, that is just foolish"

I said that everyone uses philosophy for a different purpose. And to say what I've claimed is foolish? Well, I've read four books written in the 1920s on philosophy - all four of them had contrasting views on what philosophy should be used for.


"I think that one's situation can dramatically effect the way they view all things."

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - one's position in life does not control how capable of logic they are. I have no advantage over you in terms of philosophical abilities by my position in life. Whether I have money and you don't (hypothetical, not implying either is true) does not affect one's abilities in philosophy. I've heard it argued that those with minimal funds can't purchase as many books as those with higher financial status. Bull. I buy my philosophy books at a used store for $2.25 a piece.


"Can we ever grow further than what we've learned and studied thusfar? I do not believe so."

So then where did we stop? Somewhere around 1930? 'Cause that's when Wittgenstein and Russel and Ayer stopped publishing new developements in philosophy. Oh, shit, then you gotta think about Sartre. So somewhere around 1940, when Sartre was bringing new ideas to existentialism? Oh, fuck, then what about Noam Chomsky?

You see, jlabrec, to say that we can't gain more knoweldge and understanding is to say that we reached our peak within the last ten years. Because I can definetly think of philosophical works that invited new ideas within that time period.


"What can a person truly learn from constantly picking apart lifes mysteries"

How huamns function, why humans function the way they do, how we interact, how our knowledge is gained, how to improve knowledge gaining.... There's a million things I can think of.


"I am looking to this question in a philosophical sense"

No, you're not. And you have a very poor understanding of philosophy.


"Logic and philosophy are not to be used together"

Now I'm very, very happy this thread was moved out of General Philosophy. Philosophy only operates on logic. I dare you to find me a philosophy book that just uses guesses that has not been ripped apart by other philosophers.

From the above sentance I'm going to deduce that you've not read a single word of philosophy. At least not past the days of Socrates (and even they called philosophy a logic game). You know, we've had plenty of members complain about elitism by those who've read philosophy saying that it's necessary and people claiming that all you need is a brain. Well, I think this is sufficient proof that philosophy should not be attacked unarmed. The man just claimed philosophy is not logic!
 
jlabrec,

The term flame, is in common use thought the internet, especially in chat rooms and message boards, and has been for some time. It refers to when a person or persons just stop discussing a topic all together and start flinging insults back and forth in a childish pissing mach.

Yes, the implication that you would be better off on AOL was an insult, as in general AOLers are looked down upon, mostly because as the simple to use "Family" isp image that they put out means there are a lot of kids, out there on AOL, and in general other internet users eventually come to expect a middle school mentality from most of them.

As for the idea of philosophy being objective, you're completely wrong. If philosophy is objective, then how is it that some philosophies and philosophical ideas can contradict other ideas. Unless you would like to show us how contradictions of fundamental absolutes can exist together in the real world, which I wouldn't put past you, I'm sure that you must be able to see now that your premise is flawed.
 
Actually, Mystech, he's wrong in a different way than you even suggest. Philosophy is the persuit of knowledge (veeeeery broad description). This cannot be objective or subjective. The object of it - knowledge - can be. But Philosophy itself is a concept.
 
Hehe... it's strange. I never figured I'd find myself feeling "at home" amongst such a motley crowd of smug intellectuals, but you know.. it's kind of coldly cozy. :cool:

I suppose it's like looking in the mirror.

EDIT: wow!!!... I'm almost to my 1000th post... if I keep pooring on the drivel, I'll be there in no time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top