PDA

View Full Version : Eidos


NearokA
28-10-2004, 02:26 AM
Let us begin this discussion my friends, with some simple questions. What of beauty? What of justice? What of love? What of...the soul?

If I had asked you, is this thing that we are looking at, beautiful, and you replied yes, then could you explain to me why it is beautiful? What is it about a particular thing, a particular person, a particular idea, that you would attach such a quality to? Or are you not even seeing the beauty of the thing, but merely focusing on its qualities? You say the colors make it beautiful. Color is a quality. What of a colorblind man? Does he not see beauty? What of black and white photographs, are they not beautiful, perhaps at times, even more beautiful than their colored counterparts? So if it is not merely the qualities that make something beautiful, than what is it? Do you believe that beauty is relative, or absolute? That is to say, do you think that the concept of beauty has always existed, before man, and we have just now, through faculties of the brain, grasped this idea, or do you think that beauty is man-made, that it is relative to each person or each group of persons. Is there one beauty, and we are all just confused at the qualities?

And what of justice friends? Can you even define it? Is justice merely, "to each his due," or is it more complicated than that? For instance: Let us imagine that my friend had given me his guns for safe keeping, and leaves to discover his place in the world. Then a few years down the road, my friend returns, but something is not right. He is, a little more quirky, a little more jumpy, a little more...crazy. He then asks me for his guns. They are his. Should I give him his due knowing that my life and perhaps the lives of others may be at risk? Do you believe that justice is that which the person with the big stick says to do? If that's the case, let us examine this scenario. Hitler had a really big stick. Should Hitler not be condemn for his actions? I mean, he was only doing what he thought was right, and he was the most powerful person in the world. Does that statement strike you as odd? Then, is justice relative, or is it absolute?

Ah yes, love. What do you make of love? Do you think it's sex? Do you think it's an affinity for things? Do you think it's a connection that people share? If I do many things for a lady, is that love? If I become the most gorgeous man in the world, is that love? If I buy for a lady, the moon and the stars, if I lay down my life for my lady, are these things love? Come now, tell me friends, what is love? And do elaborate, do not short change yourselves. For I wish to know the source, and I wish you to tell me an exact definition, so that I may use this and find love myself. And what about the love of animals? Do not they experience love? Have you ever watched closely, your dog? Did you ever stop to think that he really misses you when you're gone, and he's really excited when you return. Have you ever thought how much he depends on you, and how much you depend on him for emotional support? Did you know that wolves will cry when one member of their pack is missing? Did you know that elephants will mourn the loss of their family members? And we can surely agree here that love can take on more extreme forms. Let's take the Bible for example. Abraham would slay his first born son out of his love for God. Am I the only one here that thinks this is fucked up? And what of things in general, do they experience love? Well, if you consider love as a connection, one would think that hydrogen bonds would be very much in love and if it wasn't for their strong love, we probably wouldn't be alive. And what about ionic bonding, why, they love each other so much, it takes much energy and effort to break them apart. Is love absolute?

Let us conclude with the soul. Some don't believe the soul exists, others believe that the soul is the only thing that gives us hope for an afterlife. It largely depends on what one defines the soul to be. Let us start with the ancients. They believed that the soul was an essence of yourself and that you would retain the physical image of yourself after death (keep in mind, this is 500 years before Christianity). It's probably the most common conception of the soul. Not only that, they also contemplated heaven. Would you believe me if I told you that the Hebrew doctrine never had a heaven? It wasn't until St. Augustine read Aristrotle, that he reconciled Christian doctrine with the anicents. St. Augustine said, take all the documents from the platoists, and let us remake the Christian doctrine to make it more appealing. Basically, the Christian idea of heaven was stolen from the greeks. If you doubt me, you can actually read St. Augustine's notes, of him specifically saying to steal ideas from Plato and Aristrotle. Before that, the Hebrews believed that all people went to the same place, similar to Hades, and that God was the only one fit for heaven. Afterall, who were you to the gods? What did you do that made them worthy of their attention? Aristrotle came and believed that the soul exists in all things living, not merely just man. He believed in the motion soul, the locomotion soul, and the reason soul. He believed that life needed only two things, the dynamis(matter) and the energia(form). He believed that all form derives from the soul. Then some 2000 years later, Bruno came up with the idea that the soul exists in all things. That every atom has a soul. That all matter is capable of life, you just have to have the right arrangement. So what is the soul to you?

Plato believed in the Eidos, or forms. That beauty is form. What is a beautiful human? A human that has the right form of being human. That is to say, if you have two eyes, two legs, two arms, etc., you are beautiful. And that we only say beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder only to squabble over the little insignificant qualites of beauty. What is love? Love is proper form. What is justice? Justice is proper form. What is the soul? The soul is form. Everything has form. And that the Eidos is what we are trying to attain through imagination, thought, and creativity. What do you believe?

DragonRat
28-10-2004, 05:27 AM
beauty = relative

justice = absolute

love = absolute

soul = does exist

Plato goes into a shitload into three of the four above (love he does not put a lot of weight into) in The Republic. I simply take the above four as granted, due to my Christian beliefs. I'd have to allude to more than what I put down here, but I'll let everyone answer before I have anything else to say.

Suffice to say, you write a lot, and it seems you have a lot of time on your hands. But, as Plato once wrote (and previously mentioned by Socrates), philosophy and the study of wisdom and virtue is the greatest profession of all.

bob
28-10-2004, 06:24 AM
existentialist. i have very few beliefs regarding spirituality, faith, truth, etc.

deviljet88
28-10-2004, 08:28 AM
Beauty: Relative to different people
Justice: What do you mean? That example wasn't of justice, it was just of being responsible or naive.
Love: I'm sure some people force themselves to love others for certain reasons, ie wealth, greed. This can still be considered as love, depending on how you define it. It might not be the selfless sacrifice anything relationship, but.
Soul: Since my brain produces the concept of a "soul", I'll just trust my brain. And only my brain.

apoggy
28-10-2004, 02:05 PM
I thought you were gonna be talking bout the com puter games publisher Eidos :P

NearokA
28-10-2004, 02:22 PM
Beauty: Relative to different people
Justice: What do you mean? That example wasn't of justice, it was just of being responsible or naive.
Love: I'm sure some people force themselves to love others for certain reasons, ie wealth, greed. This can still be considered as love, depending on how you define it. It might not be the selfless sacrifice anything relationship, but.
Soul: Since my brain produces the concept of a "soul", I'll just trust my brain. And only my brain.

Beauty is having right form, and let's be clear here, I'm not talking about the qualities. Do you really want to say that having right form is relative? Or do you want to say that form exists outside of man, ie the form of the sun, the form of the planets, the form of single celled organsims. Are you really going to say that beauty never existed 200 million years ago just because you weren't there to see it? Are you really trying to say that the sun rise was not beautiful 200 million years ago as it is today?

Bruno wrote that the soul exists in all things. Even your hat has a soul. He argued that matter is life, that there needn't be a comsic being to create life. He said that all that was needed was pushing matter in the right direction, and life would self-assemble itself. That was not a bad theory at all, seeing how it was during the 1500s.

Bruno too believed in the mind. He believed that the human brain holds unbelieveable power. You just have to train your mind and you can accomplish wild things. Did you know that most humans can remember 7 +/-2 numbers? Bruno came up with a way so you can remember 27 numbers. That's more than 3 times...

In the 1500s, they believed in alchemy, transmutation if you will. But it wasn't the commonplace idea of turning lead into gold. It was transmuting your mind to a higher level.

Aristotle said that the very reason you have is soul. What do you make of that, Jet? Do you really think the best you can be is some agglomeration of grey gooey matter and electricity?

duckula
28-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Beauty is only partially relative. It is a combination of objective and subjective judgements.

NearokA
28-10-2004, 05:56 PM
Beauty is only partially relative. It is a combination of objective and subjective judgements.

You guys have to explain your shit. lol. I don't know wtf you mean if you just keep posting things with one line.

Form of beauty is objective.
Qualities of beauty is subjective.

But qualities of beauty isn't beauty. It's only the properties. So beauty is then objective, is that what you're saying Duck?

That goes for everyone here. Don't just tell me beauty is relative or whatever, but do tell me why. I'd very much like to know the reason. If you don't know why, perhaps we should re-evaluate your mode of thinking.

And bob, you have to translate what you mean. What does it mean to be an existentist? Or would you rather have me just assume what it means....

marry rich people
28-10-2004, 09:27 PM
If I had asked you, is this thing that we are looking at, beautiful, and you replied yes, then could you explain to me why it is beautiful? What is it about a particular thing, a particular person, a particular idea, that you would attach such a quality to? Or are you not even seeing the beauty of the thing, but merely focusing on its qualities? You say the colors make it beautiful. Color is a quality. What of a colorblind man? Does he not see beauty? What of black and white photographs, are they not beautiful, perhaps at times, even more beautiful than their colored counterparts? So if it is not merely the qualities that make something beautiful, than what is it?

Qualities are what make things beautiful. If it's not qualitities that cause beauty then what is it? Color isn't the only quality out there. There are many other things besides physical appearance that cause beauty (which is usually the case). You also said beauty was a quality but in the next sentence you said "Or are you not even seeing the beauty of the thing, but merely focusing on its qualities?" Doesn't really make much sense that you could not see the beauty of something because you're only focusing on its qualities when you said that beauty is a quality.

Funny how your writing style changes from formal and all poetry-ish to things like "Be a playa and fuck that bitch right."

Hazzle
28-10-2004, 09:31 PM
And bob, you have to translate what you mean. What does it mean to be an existentist? Or would you rather have me just assume what it means....

Existentialism is a philisophy that emphasises the existence of the individual as a free and responsible agent, self-determining though acts of free will.

I've always questioned whether "free will" is actually possible. Surely our "will" is always hemmed in by societal, familial and other pressures. I mean people take jobs they don't WANT to take, because they feel the pressure to earn. You could argue it's still free will as they still had to CHOOSE but I ask you if that's a free choice, and if it's not, then it's not the exercise of free will.

I tend to believe everything is relative, which is because my philosophy is very Platonic. Everything exists as an objective form, thus there is an absolute objective "beauty", an absolute objective "justice" etc...but we mere mortals only see forms. As such all "beauty" we refer to is relative...we can only call something beautiful by reference to something ugly. What is just is merely by reference to what it is unjust (incidentally, why is it INjustice but UNjust?), and what is unjust is a subjective value that we can only understand by reference to our life experiences. To a communist, capitalism is unjust, as it's not a pure meritocracy, but to the capitalist, capitalism IS just, so long as everyone has the equal opportunity, in theory, to progress, regardless of whether in reality such equal opportunity is merely illusory.

However my own philosophy is always complicated by a nihilistic streak I have. I've never accepted Descarte's "I think, therefore I am", and I often question the existence, objectively, of anything. If nothing exists, then questions of justice, beauty and so forth are entirely irrelevant. It's pointless to say "The sunrise is beautiful" if the sunrise isn't actually objectively in existence. Does the sun exist? People would say we can feel the sun's rays, we can feel heat and light, but do we really? Or do we merely THINK we feel heat and light? Do we even exist at all, because if we don't, then whatever we "feel" or "perceive" isn't actually real. I often like to think, with a bit of a smile, that we're all the object of someone's imagination at work, and that what we think we see and feel is not real. It's quite an interesting way to think. And yeah, the logical conclusion of that theory IS that life is meaningless, but who's to say it's not?

NearokA
29-10-2004, 12:42 AM
However my own philosophy is always complicated by a nihilistic streak I have. I've never accepted Descarte's "I think, therefore I am", and I often question the existence, objectively, of anything. If nothing exists, then questions of justice, beauty and so forth are entirely irrelevant. It's pointless to say "The sunrise is beautiful" if the sunrise isn't actually objectively in existence. Does the sun exist? People would say we can feel the sun's rays, we can feel heat and light, but do we really? Or do we merely THINK we feel heat and light? Do we even exist at all, because if we don't, then whatever we "feel" or "perceive" isn't actually real. I often like to think, with a bit of a smile, that we're all the object of someone's imagination at work, and that what we think we see and feel is not real. It's quite an interesting way to think. And yeah, the logical conclusion of that theory IS that life is meaningless, but who's to say it's not?

Asking if we exist is meaningless. The world is real and so is everything in it. In may very well be that this is all an elaborate illusion, but the point is that it is real to you, and real enough to have meaning. And we can agree here that you would be afraid to die, even if you think the world is just a dream.

So the question is not whether life reality, but rather, why is life even here? Have you ever stopped to think, what is the purpose of that tree? Why does the tree continue to procreate and continue to survive all these years? Why does the tree need to even be there?

What is our purpose? Why do we even need to be here? I'm sure the Earth and the Universe can get along just fine without us in existence.

And Bob, do not think of the soul merely as a spirit that reflects your physical appearance, because it is more than that. Some have speculated that the soul exists in all matter and all matter have contructive potentiality. Some have speculated that there isn't an afterlife afterall. That immortality is gained if the species remain. That is, as long as the human species are alive, then you are immortal, for they are part of you.

Marry, you take me too seriously. hehe. And I never said let's fuck women, that's all they good for. I merely instructed on how to increase a man's chance at getting a woman. You are just like Meggie, just read it as it is and stop putting things in there. If you are confused about something, just as me why. That's much better than just insulting me.

And yes Marry, sex is part of the equation. Relationships won't last if the sex is as dry as a desert. This doesn't apply to you youngons, but when you get older, sex will very much be a huge factor. You will understand, just give it time.

Hazzle
29-10-2004, 01:11 AM
Asking if we exist is meaningless. The world is real and so is everything in it. In may very well be that this is all an elaborate illusion, but the point is that it is real to you, and real enough to have meaning. And we can agree here that you would be afraid to die, even if you think the world is just a dream.

Errr...you clearly don't know me then. I'm more than happy to meet the Grim Reaper any time the cunt wants to rip me off this mortal coil and end the suffering that we call life. After all, to me it doesn't have much meaning, I go on merely because, well...not going on isn't much fun. For a philosopher to state that asking about our very existence is meaningless is ridiculous. Why bother asking what beauty is, if beautiful things do not exist? If beauty itself does not exist, then what it is is nothing but the construct of some elaborate illusion.

So the question is not whether life reality, but rather, why is life even here? Have you ever stopped to think, what is the purpose of that tree? Why does the tree continue to procreate and continue to survive all these years? Why does the tree need to even be there?

Who says it IS there? It need have no reason for existing if it doesn't in fact exist now, does it? So there you just proved the need to prove existence in a philosophical discussion.

What is our purpose? Why do we even need to be here? I'm sure the Earth and the Universe can get along just fine without us in existence.

Hahaha...asking if whether we exist is unimportant when talking about WHY we exist? C'mon, give me a break. "Why do we even need to be here?" Who says we are? I say we're not here, and the reason we're here is thus pointless, since there is no reason, since we're not here. See why existence is crucial to discussion philsophy?

And Bob, do not think of the soul merely as a spirit that reflects your physical appearance, because it is more than that. Some have speculated that the soul exists in all matter and all matter have contructive potentiality. Some have speculated that there isn't an afterlife afterall. That immortality is gained if the species remain. That is, as long as the human species are alive, then you are immortal, for they are part of you.

And some have speculated as to whether the soul even exists, just as some have speculated if anything exists. See if you ask me if the soul exists, I ask you if you exist...and you answer yes...then I ask you to prove it...if you can, good for you, but don't dismiss my line of questioning as "irrelevant" because if existence is relative, which is what you admit when you say " but the point is that it is real to you, and real enough to have meaning.", then every single human construct such as "beauty", "justice" etc has to be relative too. If our very existence can only be defined relative to what we think or perceive, then clearly everything is relative. If we cannot prove the existence of ourselves, or the world around us, then everything, top to bottom, is relative.

So you see my Nihilism does have an objective. It suggests that everything has to be relative, if existence itself is relative.

NearokA
29-10-2004, 04:18 AM
Let me be the first to point out: you're weird Haz. :p hehe.

Okay let me get this straight. You think the universe and all in it is merely an illusion since we cannot prove it's existence. But it is real, we can prove it's real by going about using our 5 senses and our mind. What else do we have?

Suppose it is a dream. Suppose it's like the matrix. Well, the world IS still real, to you and to me. You understand? It's real enough to be meaningful unless otherwise stated that it's an illusion, and proven to be an illusion. Thus life isn't meaningless, even if life happens to be an illusion. It's still a meaningful dream, you understand?

And we are here. I have stated this in the above paragraph. If we weren't here, then you have alot of explaining to do mister. lol. I was simply asking, why does the oak tree grow, and why does it continue to strive against the harsh nature to mulitply. Clearly, it has no function whatsoever to the planet. Do you think the planet cares whether there is an oak tree on the hill? So why does there need to be an oak tree at all? It exists, but why does it exist. Do you want to say that a random bunch of molecules that came together to form the oak tree in a process that took billions of years? So is the oak tree just a random occurence of things that neither the earth nor the universe cares for its functionality and that its purpose is to continue to mulitply until some other combination of molecules comes along that extinguishes the oak tree into extinction? Is that really its purpose?

The oak tree's function clearly isn't to provide us with oxygen. The oak tree could give a damn whether or not we suffocate. So then, the oak tree's function is to multiply and survive as a species for as long as it can. And it will do so, by any means necessary and within its capabilites. If you think about, humans have the same problem. We could give a damn about the oak tree's existence, if not for the fact that it provides us with oxygen to breathe.

What's the point? We'd be far better off just being rocks and chilling for a few hundred million years. Why do all these molecules go into such trouble to collect energy? Why do they go through so much trouble to multiply? If on the individual scale, the purpose of life is death and reproduction, then on a species scale, the purpose of a species is to thrive and muliply and exist, for as long as your capabilites will allow. Suppose we exist for infinity, then have we now become purposeless? Is that all there is to life? I suppose maybe one could argue that survival is infinite.

Now then, enter the soul. The soul gives us purpose. It gives MATTER purpose. The soul explains why molecules would expend so much energy to come together and form complex living structures. ALL MATTER has a soul, because all matter has within itself a potentiality to contruct complicated things. Because without the soul, why don't we just chill in space as simple ionic species. It's the simplest energy state possible.

What I don't understand is why life struggles so hard to maintain itself. Maybe life is more than just a collection molecules after all.

deviljet88
29-10-2004, 06:13 AM
Beauty is having right form, and let's be clear here, I'm not talking about the qualities. Do you really want to say that having right form is relative? Or do you want to say that form exists outside of man, ie the form of the sun, the form of the planets, the form of single celled organsims. Are you really going to say that beauty never existed 200 million years ago just because you weren't there to see it? Are you really trying to say that the sun rise was not beautiful 200 million years ago as it is today?

Bruno wrote that the soul exists in all things. Even your hat has a soul. He argued that matter is life, that there needn't be a comsic being to create life. He said that all that was needed was pushing matter in the right direction, and life would self-assemble itself. That was not a bad theory at all, seeing how it was during the 1500s.

Bruno too believed in the mind. He believed that the human brain holds unbelieveable power. You just have to train your mind and you can accomplish wild things. Did you know that most humans can remember 7 +/-2 numbers? Bruno came up with a way so you can remember 27 numbers. That's more than 3 times...

In the 1500s, they believed in alchemy, transmutation if you will. But it wasn't the commonplace idea of turning lead into gold. It was transmuting your mind to a higher level.

Aristotle said that the very reason you have is soul. What do you make of that, Jet? Do you really think the best you can be is some agglomeration of grey gooey matter and electricity?
Without that electricity and gooey matter, you think your soul would exist? And I said beauty is relative to different people. Should've said things, but yeah. But really, objects aren't going to care about their beauty. Beauty is a living perspective, you can't just say, what if noones there to look at that beauty. I mean if noones there, meh, that beauty can go wither away.

bob
29-10-2004, 09:48 AM
However my own philosophy is always complicated by a nihilistic streak I have. I've never accepted Descarte's "I think, therefore I am", and I often question the existence, objectively, of anything. If nothing exists, then questions of justice, beauty and so forth are entirely irrelevant. It's pointless to say "The sunrise is beautiful" if the sunrise isn't actually objectively in existence. Does the sun exist? People would say we can feel the sun's rays, we can feel heat and light, but do we really? Or do we merely THINK we feel heat and light? Do we even exist at all, because if we don't, then whatever we "feel" or "perceive" isn't actually real. I often like to think, with a bit of a smile, that we're all the object of someone's imagination at work, and that what we think we see and feel is not real. It's quite an interesting way to think. And yeah, the logical conclusion of that theory IS that life is meaningless, but who's to say it's not?
do you have any idea how scary it is for me to read your posts? i read them and go "hey, i've been thinking these exact same things for the past 3 years though i've never been able to express them in a coherent manner" and yeah. i kept going to my friends "how do you know the blue i see is the same as your blue? what if blue to you is my yellow? but you still call it blue because my yellow is your blue..." and all that stuff of "how do you know?" because quite frankly we don't. i've even said to my friends that they could possibly be a figment of my imagination, and perhaps i'm the center of the universe and all its matter and that they are merely creations within this universe that is my conscious. i think they took quite a bit of offense to that theory. but far out, haz, you really scare me.

descarte's "i think therefore i am" - i read it and went "this reminds me of ontology!" and then looked up ontology and find that it's directly related to descartes. it's a small world after all. so i was thinking about recent discussions i've been having with my friend over the existence of god, and she says that she can't accept my existential standing because she believes in the ontological argument that the fact that the concept of god exists in our minds proves his existence.

to which i go 'no'. i think we're a random mixture of elements and physical matter and that the chemical reactions that are our brain thought processes -which have advanced to the point where we have developed the power to speculate- have lead us to create a being that will bring purpose to our purposeless world.

bad grammar all year round. it mightn't make sense, but you'd really have to know me, the way i think, and the terrible structuring of my thoughts in order to understand me completely. raj mahal can, although 2 years worth of shared classes tends to do that.

And Bob, do not think of the soul merely as a spirit that reflects your physical appearance, because it is more than that. Some have speculated that the soul exists in all matter and all matter have contructive potentiality. Some have speculated that there isn't an afterlife afterall. That immortality is gained if the species remain. That is, as long as the human species are alive, then you are immortal, for they are part of you.
i don't believe in immortality. i don't believe in the afterlife. i don't believe in eternal life. i believe in life, death and my present conscious self. and how exactly are the human species a part of me and how will i live vicariously through them? cos i'm just dieing to know (get the pun? i love puns)

So you see my Nihilism does have an objective. It suggests that everything has to be relative, if existence itself is relative.
existential nihilism for me. yesireebob :D

For a philosopher to state that asking about our very existence is meaningless is ridiculous
for a philosopher maybe. i still reckon trying to find meaning in our meaningless existence is ultimately a meaningless task in itself. as is everything we do in the grand scale of things. because there is no grand scale, life is life, death is death. however, that's not to say that you can't put purpose or meaning into your life on a personal level. just because we're insignificant doesn't mean we can't feel important. so if you want to ponder your existence then provided it gives you some feeling of some sort than it's worth something to you.

but i don't know what i'm saying. i just blurt stuff out in the hopes of it randomly falling into order (permutation? aha) you know i really wish it was raj i was having this conversation with as opposed to 'beauty boy' and 'haz the cynic' :p

NearokA
29-10-2004, 01:45 PM
do you have any idea how scary it is for me to read your posts? i read them and go "hey, i've been thinking these exact same things for the past 3 years though i've never been able to express them in a coherent manner" and yeah. i kept going to my friends "how do you know the blue i see is the same as your blue? what if blue to you is my yellow? but you still call it blue because my yellow is your blue..." and all that stuff of "how do you know?" because quite frankly we don't. i've even said to my friends that they could possibly be a figment of my imagination, and perhaps i'm the center of the universe and all its matter and that they are merely creations within this universe that is my conscious. i think they took quite a bit of offense to that theory. but far out, haz, you really scare me.

Maybe not the exact shade, or maybe not the exact emotions, but blue is the same blue. If it wasn't, how'd we be able to agree on such things? Did you ever think of that?

It also has to do with language. You may call a blue thing yellow, but it's still blue. Though you refer to it as a yellow color, your yellow is just everyone's blue and you're back to talking about the same thing again. You'd have to actually see a different color (or think your seeing a different color) for you to be talking about two different things. And if that's the case, we'd never agree on colors.

to which i go 'no'. i think we're a random mixture of elements and physical matter and that the chemical reactions that are our brain thought processes -which have advanced to the point where we have developed the power to speculate- have lead us to create a being that will bring purpose to our purposeless world.

The point wasn't the purpose of man, but the purpose molecules serve as forming complex structures. If there truely is no purpose, than there is no point in having structure in the first place. Why don't we all just float around as ions?

i don't believe in immortality. i don't believe in the afterlife. i don't believe in eternal life. i believe in life, death and my present conscious self. and how exactly are the human species a part of me and how will i live vicariously through them? cos i'm just dieing to know (get the pun? i love puns)

Immorality lasts because a part of you lasts. A part of you can be in form of just your DNA sequencing, or your ideas. The human form and the human imagination and the human creativity is what survives. IF that survives, than what YOU are has also survived (even though you may not be concious).

Without that electricity and gooey matter, you think your soul would exist? And I said beauty is relative to different people. Should've said things, but yeah. But really, objects aren't going to care about their beauty. Beauty is a living perspective, you can't just say, what if noones there to look at that beauty. I mean if noones there, meh, that beauty can go wither away.

Yes Devil. Not my soul, but the soul of matter.

The qualities of beauty is what is relative. THe essence of beauty is absolute, so for something to be beauitul, you need not be there to see it. It just is beautiful. For something to beautiful absolute, it need only particpate in achieving perfect form. None of the other qualities compare. So if you're human, and you participate in having the right form of human, then you are beautiful. And you need not be some model or rock star or movie star to achieve this. And objects do care about being beautiful, if they didn't, they wouldn't have any form!!

Jet, if no one's there it can go wither away? Bad thinking! No one occupies 99% of the universe!! WHy doesn't that just wither away!! lol.

hasselbrad
29-10-2004, 02:07 PM
Everything is relative. I think tall brunettes, Ferraris and black and white photographs are some of the most beautiful things the human eye can see.
Justice is relative depending on what side of the judgement you're on. Just wait until November 3rd here in the States to see what I mean.
Love is different for everyone. We all show and appreciate love differently. For some people, love is defined almost excusively by sex. Some people are incapable of loving. Some only love possessions.
Soul. Sure...why not? Something has to drive us to sing, dance and jump out of airplanes. If it was all about the electrical impulses, we'd simply be robots.

Bob...even as a child, I can remember looking at other people and wondering what it must feel like to be in their skin...so I can see exactly where you are coming from.

Hazzle
29-10-2004, 05:17 PM
But it is real, we can prove it's real by going about using our 5 senses and our mind. What else do we have?

Those senses can't per se be trusted to be accurate.

Suppose it is a dream. Suppose it's like the matrix. Well, the world IS still real, to you and to me. You understand? It's real enough to be meaningful unless otherwise stated that it's an illusion, and proven to be an illusion. Thus life isn't meaningless, even if life happens to be an illusion. It's still a meaningful dream, you understand?

A meaningful dream to those in it, perhaps, but then if all meaning to life itself is relative, since it is ONLY meaningful TO us, then all concepts we use to describe life are relative. That was the point I was making.

And we are here. I have stated this in the above paragraph. If we weren't here, then you have alot of explaining to do mister. lol. I was simply asking, why does the oak tree grow, and why does it continue to strive against the harsh nature to mulitply. Clearly, it has no function whatsoever to the planet. Do you think the planet cares whether there is an oak tree on the hill? So why does there need to be an oak tree at all? It exists, but why does it exist.

Ok...you're not really getting my point, you're just ignoring it (Hassel's right, you'd make a great politician). It doesn't objectively exist, therefore any question as to why it exists, and then trying to argue that in terms of physical "reality" is pointless. If it's existence is only relative, and existence itself is merely a dream or an illusion, then seeking to apply our notion of "reason" to it seems pointless. If this is all an elaborate dream, it surely makes more sense to question why the dream had to occur at all, rather than deconstructing elements of it.

I could argue with the rest of your post but it asks a lot of questions I believe to be irrelevant.

do you have any idea how scary it is for me to read your posts? i read them and go "hey, i've been thinking these exact same things for the past 3 years though i've never been able to express them in a coherent manner"

Heh. You list lots of things there I've thought about...it really is freaky... I'm glad I'm not the only one who challenges perceptions. People take what they see for granted, I like to ask "What if my sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste are all buggered and I've been perceiving the world...wrongly?" Few people ask those sorts of questions...I think it's healthy to do so.

descarte's "i think therefore i am" - i read it and went "this reminds me of ontology!"

I've never been a fan of Ontology. I mean, just because someone BELIEVES God exists, that doesn't mean he objectively does. Objective reality and our perception of reality are not necessarily identical, and thus our perceptions of things cannot possible dictate the objective truth. After all, whether something exists objectively or not is a FACT, one we may not be able to know, but a fact nonetheless, whereas whether we believe it does is an opinion, a perception, but our perception could well be wrong.

have lead us to create a being that will bring purpose to our purposeless world.

That's what God is to me. That's why I've chosen a path of agnosticism. I've yet to see proof that God exists, or that he doesn't, and to be honest I'd probably challenge any "proofs" I saw. I've always thought we should prove our own existence before we prove God's. I'm happy to believe in a God, if it brings purpose to a purposeless world, because I happen to be one who struggles with bothering to live if it has no purpose...but I also accept that if I CHOOSE to believe that, for my own sake, it doesn't mean God objectively exists. I suppose "God" is a personification of hope.

i don't believe in immortality. i don't believe in the afterlife. i don't believe in eternal life. i believe in life, death and my present conscious self.

It all depends how one defines immortality. I mean, one can achieve immortality in a broader sense, in the way that, for example, Plato has, or Homer, or Einstein...etc. Most people will never attain immortality. They may extend their "impact" on this world beyond their death, because, for example, one's children bear the "impact" of their upbringing, for better or worse. However it lasts at most one or two generations, not eternity, and so isn't immortality.

for a philosopher maybe. i still reckon trying to find meaning in our meaningless existence is ultimately a meaningless task in itself.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say we had to find meaning in our meaningless "existence", I merely argued that our existence has to be the pre-requisite to any further thought. You're an existential nihilist, as such for you existence is meaningless. For me, whether our "existence" is meaningless or not has to be a secondary consideration. Our primary concern in any philosophy to life has to be to ask DO we exist? Before we get to the why (finding meaning) we have to deal with the question of DO we exist?

you know i really wish it was raj i was having this conversation with as opposed to 'beauty boy' and 'haz the cynic' :p

A cynic? Moi? You jest!

It also has to do with language. You may call a blue thing yellow, but it's still blue. Though you refer to it as a yellow color, your yellow is just everyone's blue and you're back to talking about the same thing again. You'd have to actually see a different color (or think your seeing a different color) for you to be talking about two different things. And if that's the case, we'd never agree on colors.

You're somewhat again missing the point. Say when you see a blue, and I see a blue, we both call it a blue, but we both see two totally different things. We see them at the same time, because your mind perceives things differently to me, so why would we disagree? You need to think about this a little more deeply. It's not about whether I call a blue thing yellow and you call it blue, because if we both saw, say, a blue car, and you called it blue and I called it yellow, we'd never agree.

But say we both saw a blue car. We both CALL what we see a blue car. But in fact what my eyes are SEEING is yellow, and if your eyes SAW what mine did, you'd call it yellow, I just call it blue. Then what? We both see a blue car, yet my eyes aren't seeing anything close to the same thing as you. It's got to do with the perception of reality...basically put the two things you said there together, and you'll see what I mean. I SEE something totally different to you, AND I call it the EXACT same thing you do.

Y'see when we're children we learn colours and things by what we see. We see a blue patch of cloth, for example, and we point at it and our parents say "blue" all the time and we think it's blue. But what if my eyes are ACTUALLY seeing yellow? I'd grow up seeing a yellow thing where you see blue, but actually calling it blue. We'd think we were agreeing on what it looked like, but we wouldn't be. And there'd be no way for us to know.

If there truely is no purpose, than there is no point in having structure in the first place. Why don't we all just float around as ions?

Who says there IS a point? Who says it's not just random luck that instead of floating around, which'd be a simpler existence, out of sheer chaos (and thus no reason) molecules got together to form structures. Just...because. Your whole philosophy presumes things HAVE a purpose, but who says they do? You say floating around would be an easier existence...who says things have to be easy?

Immorality lasts because a part of you lasts. A part of you can be in form of just your DNA sequencing, or your ideas. The human form and the human imagination and the human creativity is what survives. IF that survives, than what YOU are has also survived (even though you may not be concious).

What makes us US is not our genes. Our personality has nothing to do with our form, and really what makes me me, and you you, is our personalities, not the forms they come in. And that part of one isn't immortal. It may last beyond the grave, but it won't last for eternity, and thus isn't immortal.

THe essence of beauty is absolute, so for something to be beauitul, you need not be there to see it. It just is beautiful.

He makes a point here. The FORM of beauty is an absolute, we just don't see the form, and thus for each of us beauty is relative. If we could see the form of beauty, we could objectively say what things were beautiful as a matter of fact.

You say 99% of the Universe is unoccupied, so why doesn't it wither away? Who says it's there? Who says the 1% that IS occupied is here. Until you can philosophically argue with me that things exist, then don't use science. I respect people with scientific knowledge, but I also question it. Science uses our perceptions, to use a microscope, for example, one needs eyes. If ours eyes perceive things to exist, that doesn't mean they do, or that they exist the way our eyes perceive them.

Thus science, since it is dependent on perception, can be dismissed from this argument. Prove to me our perceptions are true, objectively, and then you can use science:p. You've used science to build up a construct of existence, and then try and philosophise as to the reasons. That's your mistake. Philosophise as to the existence first, then get to WHY things exist.

BTW, I think this is the longest post in KKW's history, I actually went over the 10,000 character limit and had to edit it back :p

bob
30-10-2004, 03:00 AM
haz has pretty much said what i wanted to say to nearoka.

What makes us US is not our genes. Our personality has nothing to do with our form, and really what makes me me, and you you, is our personalities, not the forms they come in. And that part of one isn't immortal. It may last beyond the grave, but it won't last for eternity, and thus isn't immortal.
i agree with all of it except - i don't believe our personalities can exist beyound the grave. as you say, it's all relative. what's being remembered is a form of us created by people's perceptions, a perception which may conform to the standard - "einstein was a great physicist" or "einstein was bad at maths" - but it's one that varies with every individual. therefore it's not actually me OR my personality that continues to exist, it's an image.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say we had to find meaning in our meaningless "existence", I merely argued that our existence has to be the pre-requisite to any further thought. You're an existential nihilist, as such for you existence is meaningless. For me, whether our "existence" is meaningless or not has to be a secondary consideration. Our primary concern in any philosophy to life has to be to ask DO we exist? Before we get to the why (finding meaning) we have to deal with the question of DO we exist?
i have to say that i'm fickle. instead of considering things in a sequential order, i tend to go in and out of various theories regardless of whether they contradict my more sincere beliefs. i'd like to say that it's a very post-modern approach, but i think it has more to do with my impatience, having grown up with hypermedia :p

Hazzle
30-10-2004, 03:40 AM
haz has pretty much said what i wanted to say to nearoka.

Sorry about that. I said a lot. Kinda got into a flow...

i agree with all of it except - i don't believe our personalities can exist beyound the grave. as you say, it's all relative. what's being remembered is a form of us created by people's perceptions, a perception which may conform to the standard - "einstein was a great physicist" or "einstein was bad at maths" - but it's one that varies with every individual. therefore it's not actually me OR my personality that continues to exist, it's an image.

Hmmm...but perception always varies with every individual. I mean you could say what exists is just an image, but then, what if you're just an image yourself, the product of someone's imagination? I mean existence itself is relative, and requires a belief on the part of every person that they exist, so that in itself varies with every individual. This is the problem with perception.

i have to say that i'm fickle. instead of considering things in a sequential order, i tend to go in and out of various theories regardless of whether they contradict my more sincere beliefs. i'd like to say that it's a very post-modern approach, but i think it has more to do with my impatience, having grown up with hypermedia :p

No, to be fair, I'm quite pedantic in my need to be sequential in how I go about thinking...I try and impose a structure on my thinking, and I sometimes expect others to do so, which is unfair of me really.

NearokA
30-10-2004, 04:05 AM
Okay okay.

Now I see blue blue. My friend, he sees yellow but calls it blue. Now he's seeing something totally different than I am, but he still calls it blue. Than I say, blue is the color of the ocean and brings me calmness. And he says blue(which he sees as yellow) is the color of the ocean and brings me calmness. I understand the problem.

Let's look to science :p. Okay, we all know that blue has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Yellow has a wavelength of about 570 nm. Now I point and say, 475 nm, that's blue light! My friend points at 570nm, he says, that's blue light! All the major scientists in the world point at 475 nm and say, that's blue light! Is my friend fucked up? YES! How do we know? Well, if everybody's experience with blue is that color that corresponds to 475 nm, and you're the only one that calls blue that color that corresponds to 570nm, than you know something's wrong with your vision (or your defintion).

Now you can get into the case where we both see blue blue. And I call it blue, and my friend calls it yellow. Than it's just definition. Blue is blue, we pointing at the same thing, just not saying the same thing. It's still blue.

Haz, you're confused. If you truly doubt your own thinking, then what are you doing on these forums? What were you doing in school? What are you doing now? You see, you can doubt that the sun will rise everyday. You can doubt that gravity will always be here. But you cannot doubt you are a thinking thing, because in even posulating that, you have to be thinking! If you weren't thinking, than how would you even be doing it? Am I the only one that sees the absurdity here?

If you say you doubt existence, then what are you doing here? Why are you even arguing? They have a word for people like you. They are called idealism That is, they believe that everything in the universe isn't real. That the real materials exist in some other worldly dimension, and what we see, feel, taste, hear, and smell are just mere images. Images so strong, that we are decieved.

So why don't you go outside in the snow and meditate. You can join Poggy. And if you mediate hard enough with a strong mind, you should be able to make the snow disappear. Afterall, it's just a mere illusion. Another problem is, why do you think that everything should be mental (or some form of mental) events? Are you honestly going to say that when I break my steel toed boot up in your ass, that that's not phsycial in anyway? lol. You think things don't exist at all. You question the validty of reality. You ask for proof? Here, lemme give you proof. Take a bat, and hit yourself in the head as hard as you can. If things truly don't exist for you, then the outcome shouldn't matter at all. And if you think you didn't hit yourself hard enough, invite me to England, I'll make sure to hit you as hard as my muscles will allow. But if after you hit yourself, you say, fuck, that shit hurt! Then you know what you've just experienced was real. If you go and make some story about the pain being an illusion too difficult to evade, then I don't believe you when you say I question reality. You're a pauper and you're saying things to bring trouble, when trouble needn't be caused.

On another note, let us get into Francis Bacon. Now Bacon, in The New Organon written in 1620, says that the mind is full of false idols. He really hates snobbish englishmen. He writes in a time when the rich British aristocrats thought they were hot shit with their cambridge education and their manor house upbringing.

1) Idols of the tribes: You think you're the measure of all things. You think you're hot shit. But what you really are is just a savage among a tribe. You decieve truth and you recreate truth to serve your own agenda, because of your self-flaws.
2) Idols of the cave: You think you're the shit with fancy pansy education. You think you're so smart. But all you're upbring, all your expensive, sophisticated eductation has done for you is bring you to a cave. And in a cave you'll dwell, because that's all you're good for. You're upbringing and your education is what will tarnish the truth.
3) Idols of the marketplace: Language invented for these sole purposes: money, commerce, and business. That's all men use it for. And when you read stuff from the rich well-educated aristocrats, you'll get all this bombastic language, and in the end, all they want is fame and money. Bacon invites you to use language as a tool for truth, not wealth.
4) Idols of the theater: The theater in those days was thought of as raunchy, filthy, and vile. Fit only for the poor peasants and the pigs that accompanied them. Now Bacon goes and says, what the hell do you think you're doing in church? Church is on a stage, and the priest and helpers are the actors, and what are you? You're the paid watcher! You idiot! You think you're so sophisticated because you go to church? You're no better off then going to the theater with the pigs and the peasants and watching their vile comedies. It's the idols of religion and false philosophy that will cloud your thoughts.

In short, Bacon believes that it is science that will clear us of the Idols of the mind. Because science is what will give us truth. Here, let me entertain you with an excerpt:

"But by far the greatest hindrance and aberration of the human understanding proceeds from the dullness, incompetency, and deceptions of the senses; in that things which strike the sense outweigh things which do not immediately strike it, though they be more important. Hence it is that speculation commonly ceases where sight ceases; insomuch that of thing invisible there is litte or no observation. For the sense by itself is a thing infrim and erring; neither can insturments for enlarging or sharpening the sneses do much; but all the truer kind of interpetation of nature is effected by instances and experiments fit and apposite; wherein the sense decides touching the experiment only, and the experiment touching the point in nature and the thing itself."

What he's saying is the Haz's hocus pocus will never get you to see the invisble things which go largely unnoticed, like gravity or energy (unlike say seeing the sun rise). You have to turn to science. For the eye observes the experiment; i.e. you observe a rock that falls from a height, or you feel the heat energy, or you observe a discharge from electron motion, and the experiment touches nature itself. Meaning that it's the experiment that sees energy and gravity. And through the experiment, we can grasp the idea of seeing the unseen, of hearing that which is silent, and of touching, that which cannot be touched.

Bacon, next to Bruno and Aristrotle and Kant, is one my favorite philosophers. What do you make of it? Do you still think science is just hocus pocus? I truly believe, Haz, that you are in the wrong profession. Because the search for truth, the search for purpose, the search for the universal soul, and the search for pure knowledge, these are the things that matter! These are the things that we should pursue!

And HAz, I always go over the 10,000 character limit. lol.

What makes us are the molecules that make us. What makes us alive is the ability to manipluate and harness energy. Such notions of personality being something special and unique falls under the idols of the mind. Personality is something that exists only in our minds. That I can agree with you.

bob
30-10-2004, 04:18 AM
haz - well on the plus side your theories connect to create a whole.

Hmmm...but perception always varies with every individual. I mean you could say what exists is just an image, but then, what if you're just an image yourself, the product of someone's imagination? I mean existence itself is relative, and requires a belief on the part of every person that they exist, so that in itself varies with every individual. This is the problem with perception.
that's tied to your questioning of existence. supposing we decided that we DO exist, then my next argument would be that we exist as individuals and we leave an impression on others. perceptions will of course, always be varying from individual to individual. so when we cease to exist all that's left behind is varying impressions that can only hint as to what/who we were.

on the topic of existence itself - i don't think that i would actually exist if i'm a product of someone's imagination. because that would be ontology all over again. the idea that because someone perceives my existence, that i therefore exist. instead, i reckon in the case where everything IS a product of someone's imagination and it doesn't really exist, then that 'person' would essentially be the center of the universe. sounds narcissistic but it's not meant to :p basically the person with the imagination has to exist, because in order for the imagining to be happening someone is at the helm of it, experiencing or witnessing it (not necessarily in control of it) so we've determined that someONE exists, however everything else doesn't. YOU are a product of my imagination, and therefore you don't really exist.

and of course my friends would take offense to this "who are you to say that I'M merely a result of YOU" any self-respecting existentialist wouldn't like that idea. even those who aren't existentialist wouldn't like the suggestion that i'm the sole power and they don't exist.

(note: my friends didn't actually make that comment, they just stared at me and went "i think i exist")

Do you still think science is just hocus pocus? I truly believe, Haz, that you are in the wrong profession. Because the search for truth, the search for purpose, the search for the universal soul, and the search for pure knowledge, these are the things that matter! These are the things that we should pursue!
did haz actually say that science is a fiction? personally, after already deciding that we do exist, i reckon science is one of the only certainties in the world. but to me science merely encompasses the absolutes of the physical world.

and concepts of truth/purpose/soul/knowledge are all purely relative. how can you pursue something which changes with every individual's perceptions and therefore doesn't exist in an absolute form?

but to go back on the science thing and address the issue of existence and perception again, i used to say "fact is just popular opinion". now how do we know that a fact is a fact? it's just that society as a collective believes it and therefore it becomes fact. the sky is blue - fact. but then bringing back the whole "my blue is your yellow but you think yellow is blue" therefore the sky IS blue. but in actual fact, for one person the sky IS yellow and for the other it IS blue. but they both call it blue. therefore the sky is blue - it's not really fact, but then it is. get it? it's weird.

Hazzle
30-10-2004, 04:39 AM
Let's look to science :p. Okay, we all know that blue has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Yellow has a wavelength of about 570 nm. Now I point and say, 475 nm, that's blue light! My friend points at 570nm, he says, that's blue light! All the major scientists in the world point at 475 nm and say, that's blue light! Is my friend fucked up? YES! How do we know? Well, if everybody's experience with blue is that color that corresponds to 475 nm, and you're the only one that calls blue that color that corresponds to 570nm, than you know something's wrong with your vision (or your defintion).

No, you don't. Just because the majority think one way, does not make it the correct way to think. Who's to say they're not all fucked up? You're a narrow minded man, my friend, as such, you shouldn't philosophise, really, you shouldn't. You ask questions, but you ask them from within a structure where you've already answered most of the questions that NEED answering. Before asking what the purpose behind something is, ask first if it exists, then ask if it is perceived the same to all people (relative or absolute), then ask IF it has a purpose. Then and only then ask what that is.

Now you can get into the case where we both see blue blue. And I call it blue, and my friend calls it yellow. Than it's just definition. Blue is blue, we pointing at the same thing, just not saying the same thing. It's still blue.

That's not what I was speaking of, and you know it. There you're seeing the same thing.

Haz, you're confused. If you truly doubt your own thinking, then what are you doing on these forums? What were you doing in school? What are you doing now? You see, you can doubt that the sun will rise everyday. You can doubt that gravity will always be here. But you cannot doubt you are a thinking thing

Did I do that? Please show me where said I wasn't thinking? I'm not confused at all, my friend, I'm totally coherent. Unlike you, I don't accept what I've been told, I challenge things...that is the heart of philosophy. If you want to ask questions that are philosophical in nature, you need a philosophical brain. You lack it. Sorry, that's not my fault.

If you say you doubt existence, then what are you doing here? Why are you even arguing? They have a word for people like you. They are called idealism That is, they believe that everything in the universe isn't real. That the real materials exist in some other worldly dimension, and what we see, feel, taste, hear, and smell are just mere images. Images so strong, that we are decieved.

Who says I am here? Where exactly am I? You don't answer these questions, and yet you ask an absurd question. I'm arguing, if I am arguing at all, because I want to. However who is to say I am sat here arguing? Who is to say you don't just THINK I am. Who is to say you ALL don't think I am. It's not idealism, it's merely questioning our perceptions.

And if you mediate hard enough with a strong mind, you should be able to make the snow disappear. Afterall, it's just a mere illusion.

Ok, it's official, you're an idiot. Who says I control the illusion? If ffs I am PART of it, then I cannot control it, can I, shit for brains? Maybe you should try actually READING what's written, and thinking on it before you reply.

Another problem is, why do you think that everything should be mental (or some form of mental) events? Are you honestly going to say that when I break my steel toed boot up in your ass, that that's not phsycial in anyway? lol.

Who says it is? I feel the physical sensation of pain, or I think I do, but who is to say I actually am? Can you prove that I feel any sensation, and that if I do, that that sensation is pain?

You think things don't exist at all. You question the validty of reality. You ask for proof? Here, lemme give you proof. Take a bat, and hit yourself in the head as hard as you can. If things truly don't exist for you, then the outcome shouldn't matter at all. And if you think you didn't hit yourself hard enough, invite me to England, I'll make sure to hit you as hard as my muscles will allow. But if after you hit yourself, you say, fuck, that shit hurt! Then you know what you've just experienced was real. If you go and make some story about the pain being an illusion too difficult to evade, then I don't believe you when you say I question reality. You're a pauper and you're saying things to bring trouble, when trouble needn't be caused.

No, you're an idiot. I feel the sensation of pain, but I just fucking spend an ENTIRE post saying our fucking perceptions of things are what I'm questioning. Who says I feel pain? I don't like what I think I feel, so I don't want to feel it, but that doesn't mean I ACTUALLY feel it, in an objective sense. It means my brain THINKS I feel it, and I don't like what I THINK I feel, so I try and avoid that.

Bacon, next to Bruno and Aristrotle and Kant, is one my favorite philosophers. What do you make of it? Do you still think science is just hocus pocus?

An experiment is still a fucking perception, that's what Bacon is too idiotic to have grasped. When you perform an experiement, you take measurements, those measurements, are PERCEPTIONS. Everything in the world relies on the human perception of things...as such everything has to be questioned.

I truly believe, Haz, that you are in the wrong profession. Because the search for truth, the search for purpose, the search for the universal soul, and the search for pure knowledge, these are the things that matter! These are the things that we should pursue!

Well then, it's a futile search. Because what you search for is unattainable. Truth as the Form is undetectable to our human perceptions. We only have our own warped, subjective views of truth. Purpose requires that life HAS a meaning or a purpose, but if life isn't actually taking place, if this is all a matter of our perceptions of things, then we can put whatever fucking meaning to it we want, that was my point. If our very existence is dependent on us making the conscious thought of "I exist" then the purpose for that existence is also merely a matter of conscious thought. Whatever you WANT to exist for, is what you exist for, because that's all your existence is, your belief in your existence. It's not objective existence. The soul may or may not exist too...searching for it is pointless if we cannot at least first prove our own existence. As for pure knowledge, that would require one to have first obtained the Form of Truth, because without the Form of Truth, one cannot know if what one knows is actually true, and thus TRUE, or as you call it, PURE knowledge. But as I said above, the search for truth is a futile one...

And HAz, I always go over the 10,000 character limit. lol.

Yeah...well the irony is the post of yours that you say that in is a fair bit shorter than mine. I've yet to see a post by anyone that requires me to scroll as much as mine did, but if it means so much to you, you can have that accolade :p

Incidentally, I quit on trying to educate you in the ways of philosophy. You seek ultimate knowledge, well Socrates once said the wisest man is he who knows he knows not...in other words true wisdom is accepting that "ultimate knowledge" is beyond us mere mortals. Continue to bathe in your own arrogance all you want my friend, I'm done with it. I know my beliefs are not confused, they're just confusing to your mind. Bob sees where I'm coming from, so I'm not alone, and the father of philosophy himself agrees...so what do I care for what you have to say?

I'm done...ramble on all you want...

EDIT: Only just saw bob's reply just now. Hmmm...I concede your point about IF we accept existence, then yes, you are an individual and only leave an imprint which isn't exactly who you are...true enough.

However your point about Ontology isn't quite fitting with what I meant, and I realise perhaps it was I who was unclear. Of course we do not OBJECTIVELY exist just because we think we do. However, if we believe we exist, then subjectively, as far as we need be concerned as individuals, we "exist". Do you understand what I mean? Objectively, our existence cannot be proven, but, to borrow from Nearoka, when I think I feel pain, as far as I'm concerned, I feel pain. Whilst philosophically speaking, I may not be objectively feeling pain, because I don't know that what I feel IS pain, someone else may feel a different sensation entirely, caused by the same trigger and call it pain, subjectively I feel pain. As such subjectively I must exist, in order to feel that pain, albeit subjective and relative, not absolute. True, thinking something exists does not MAKE it exist, but if I think it exists, it exists in my mind if nowhere else. Anyway, if you'd like to continue this, at any time, try me on MSN, AIM or PMs, because I'm done with Nearoka a) decompiling what I say and then b) failing to understand any of it and ridiculing it without understanding it.

NearokA
30-10-2004, 02:48 PM
You said reality is mere reflection of images and perception. A strong enough mind will be able to see past the image. Obviously, you still do not understand what I'm saying. Besides, you're the one that said you doubt Decartes, I think therefore I am. Not me. lol. To doubt your own thinking, is rather preposterous.

The fact that blue blue is really blue is irrelevant. Who cares? What if blue blue is really green, but we're just calling it blue. WHo cares? That's just a matter of changing the definition when that idenity is revealed to us. The point is that we are all talking about the same thing when we point to the wavelength of light. That's what matters. You questioned that I could be thinking of blue, and you yellow, but we call it the same thing. Well, yellow and blue cannot have the same wavelength. So, if we point to the wavelength of light and we both have the same experience, then we know we are both talking about the same thing. sigh. THE FACT THAT EVERYONE ELSE AGREES WITH ME IS IRRELEVANT, THE POINT WAS THAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, EXCEPT THE FRIEND, WHICH MAKES HIM THE ODD ONE OUT. And if we know we're all talking about the same thing, we can move on, even if that thing we think of isn't really what we think it to be (ie blue is green, but we all agree it's blue). Again, it's just a definition problem which is easy to fix when we find it's identity.

Our perception of things is our reality. You are right to say it's relative. What you want is some absolute picture of things. Well, as of right now, some absolute picture of things is nigh impossible. What I said is that if you truly believe that everything is fake because of this relativeness, then why are you arguing with me? Why do you continue to be a lawyer and continue to propagate the lies of fake reality? It's so obvious you're a fake. You truly do not believe that the world is meaningless just because our perception of things may be skewed by our limited capabilites of human vision.

IF you truly believe that the world is fake because we have not yet found an absolute way of seeing, then why do you continue living your fake life and publishing your fake papers and getting your fake fame? Why don't you live in a cave and never come out until you find the absolute way of seeing things, because, afterall that's the only way we'll ever be able to "see" reality. I tell you, what if you're mind is the limiting factor? What if you need 4,000 more years of evolution to even begin to tackle that problem? lol. You'd better pack a microwave and lots of ramen noodles. hehe. Perception could be wrong HAz, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our perception has been fairly accurate because of our continual increase in understandings and technology.

HAZ, All science isn't looking for the original. It's looking for ways of retelling our perception of things to find the truth. IF we all think it's blue, but it's really green, at least we're in agreement. Now, a scientist comes along and says, ah ha! it's green. We see that he is right through peer review and experimentation. He gets a noble prize, and we change our definiton of blue to green and move on. It may not be the absolute truth, but it gets closer and closer. And you see here that if you allow infinite time for experimentation, YOU WILL ARRIVE AT THE ABSOLUTE EVENTUALLY. Because experimentation is precisely the tool that allows us to AGREE ABOUT THE SAME THING AND KNOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

And that's right. You be done. :p I R greater than you. Raaaahhh!

bob
30-10-2004, 03:14 PM
You said reality is mere reflection of images and perception. A strong enough mind will be able to see past the image. Obviously, you still do not understand what I'm saying. Besides, you're the one that said you doubt Decartes, I think therefore I am. Not me. lol. To doubt your own thinking, is rather preposterous.
wow, you are an idiot.

one.
You said reality is mere reflection of images and perception. A strong enough mind will be able to see past the image
those aren't his exact words. you're paraphrasing things and taking them out of context and then applying it to your own narrow way of thinking.

two.
Obviously, you still do not understand what I'm saying. Besides, you're the one that said you doubt Decartes, I think therefore I am. Not me. lol. To doubt your own thinking, is rather preposterous.
the suggestion of descartes 'i think therefore i am' has to do with the knowledge of existence. if you believe in descartes statement, you are accepting that we exist simply because we think that we exist. haz is questioning existence, therefore he doesn't agree with descartes and his mention of descartes was used to emphasise this point. you're not very perceptive, so it's quite ironic that you should be lecturing about 'strong' minds.

and every teacher (except a maths teacher) would tell you that the opening paragraph of an essay has the greatest impact. therefore nearoka... i'm convinced that you can't read or interpret language in different contexts. i'm not sure whether you're a fob, or just plain stupid.

i too will bid you farewell, lest your continued presence should convince me that the world is full of crap, thus causing me to become anti-social (and i don't want to be anti-social)

NearokA
31-10-2004, 06:08 AM
Picture a black box. Now take away the fact that it's black. Now take away it's hardness and its rigidity. Now take away the very image itself. What's left?

Some believe that the world is indeed nothing but images. And that our perceptions only touch the image, and not the real object. Therefore, our perceptions is skewed because we aren't looking at the absolute. We have seen instances of this, it's called mind over matter.

Problems with this is 1). in death, the image of you should just disappear, so where does the real you go? 2). if all things are images, where are the real objects?

Questioning the perceptions of things is why I think both Haz and bob are wasting their time. I only choose to argue because quite frankly, I've nothing better to do :p. In questioning your perception, you've already skewed percieving the perception you're trying to question. Why? Beacause all you have is sight, touch, taste, hear, smell, and mind. If you use any of these faculties, your perception of things is skewed. You see the absurdity? You'll never get anywhere until you can figure out a new way of experiencing things in absolute, and with any of these 6 faculites, it is impossible to see the absolute. Which is why I keep pressing on the idealists, dualists, and materialists, trying to switch the subject so you guys can stop looking like idiots. :p

The first 5 you know why it can't be absolute. So let's examine the sixth, mind. Now mind can be a faculty of understanding that can allow us to see the absolute. But the trouble is, in order to imagine something, you had to have already experienced it in some form. That experience is what will destroy your absolute perception.

But I didn't address collective mind. I think collective mind, while not perfect, is the only tool we have to getting to the absolute perception of things (and it also saves us from those mad scientist fellows...ie the guy who sees yellow when everyone else is seeing blue). Collective mind is experimentation. You see, we may still be wrong. We may not still see the whole picture. But as the ages advance, as understandings advance, we see that the experiment is what leads us closer and closer to the truth, like a limit function. We may never get to the absolute, but being closer is better than being farther back, yes?

Haz is right in saying that what we think is fact, could actually be false, or not absolute fact. However, through our experimentation, I think we get closer and closer to absolute fact, and farther away from relative fact. How do I know this? Well just look around at all the technology. If we weren't going in the right direction and the models we have created to explain the world is wrong, than what we've been doing the past 100 years would have amounted to nothing. But it hasn't, and that's why I believe in the experiment, and I say again, it's not perfect, but it works. And that's how we "prove" things exist.

Now are we done with this? Let's get on to what the topic was about originally. lol. Or are you still going to say prove reality. I'm going to England, and I'm going to break my foot up in your ass Haz. And when you say stop it, that shit hurts, I'll respond, Am I really kicking you? Prove it! lol. What absurdity. Let's all kill each other tomorrow. We can do it because no one can prove we're killing people. OR better yet, let's create a virus that will destroy the world. Since no one can prove the virus is actually there infecting people and killing them, it's all good! Woo! Anyways, we'll just wake up from our dream as butterflies, high on crack cocaine, flying through space looking for another planet to land on so we can dream another reality. And then we wake up as elphants, that roam the celestial skies on magic pink carpets dreaming of butterflies. And then we wake up as ants, and running around a dung pile, dreaming of elphants...And you see it can go on for infinity. Infinity arguements are useless. You guys can keep telling stories to infinity. IN other words, you question perception. But in questioning perception, your questioning of questioning perception is wrong. And in questioning that, it's also wrong. And that goes on for infinity. Do you see it now? Because you keep using the very faculties that makes your perception wrong to question your perception in the first place. While it may be entertaining to know, it's it's useless arguing reality and perception. What is worth arguing is a method that will allow us to see the absolute. But then the question becomes, can we see the absolute even if all the faculites we know of can only see the relative?

Here I got an infinity riddle for you. Picture a block that is green all over. Now picture it as red all over. Now picture a block that is simotaneously green and red all over at the same time. When you can do this, I'll bow down and call you master. hehe.

You can't even understand how much mind it's taking me to refrain from insulting you for your sheer stupidity. hehe. But I do refrain. Only because I might scare you away, and I like discussion. :(

bob
31-10-2004, 02:17 PM
this isn't a discussion, because our comments are hitting a brick wall. that brick wall being your brain.

you have no idea what we're going on about. it's not surprising seeing as you didn't know what existentialism was in the first place. look it up along with nihilism and ontology and maybe you'll realise that you're confused. or maybe you'll just continue to be confused.

and your grammar disturbs me. i thought i was bad. you must be a fob.

NearokA
31-10-2004, 06:08 PM
this isn't a discussion, because our comments are hitting a brick wall. that brick wall being your brain.

you have no idea what we're going on about. it's not surprising seeing as you didn't know what existentialism was in the first place. look it up along with nihilism and ontology and maybe you'll realise that you're confused. or maybe you'll just continue to be confused.

and your grammar disturbs me. i thought i was bad. you must be a fob.

People use meanings of words differently. I knew what extentalism was. I just wanted to know what you think it is. That way it is clear that we are talking about the same thing.

Why don't you clear up your infinity arguement, and not worry so much about the ontology of it? What's wrong isn't the ontology itself, it's the framework you base your ontology on. The framework comes from the 5 senses and the mind. You with me so far? If you say, I question perception, then the questioning of questioning your perception of things is already flawed, from the start! Your framework for representing the ontology of things is what's wrong. Try and come up with different methods in producing an absolute framework, that's more productive, and quit worrying about the ontology, because you know it will always be wrong (or skewed).

Why? Because you've already used the 5 senses and the mind to question your perception. Then you'll say, well, I'll question the questioning of my perception, and then I'll question the questioning of questioning my perception even further! And you see how it'll go on for infinity without going anywhere. I already outlined this in my previous post, but I suppose I'll repeat it for you. Infinity arguements are circular arguements that lead to alot of headache and no real philosophical meaning.

Bacon has already proposed that the best way of seeing the absolute with the 5 senses and the mind is through experimentation. Experiments is what makes us know we all are talking about the same thing and meaning the same thing when we're talking. Experiments also allow us to get closer and closer to objective truth. That's what I'm arguing with. I argue the framework, or ways to modify the framework, for some reason, you and Haz are concerned with the ontology...And I'm sitting thinking to myself, how on earth did they allow Haz to get a law degree? lol. O well, I suppose some discussion is better than none at all.

Haz reminds me of a chicken with its head cut off running around in circles. You, bob, remind me of a fat white guy trying to catch the headless chicken running around in circles (I use the fat white guy because he's slow and easily entertained and I use the chicken because he's fast and nimble, but alas, he is headless...). If only you were smart enough to run the other direction, you'd see that the chicken would come to you, and you to the chicken...

bob
31-10-2004, 06:20 PM
People use meanings of words differently. I knew what extentalism was. I just wanted to know what you think it is. That way it is clear that we are talking about the same thing.

Why don't you clear up your infinity arguement, and not worry so much about the ontology of it? What's wrong isn't the ontology itself, it's the framework you base your ontology on. The framework comes from the 5 senses and the mind. You with me so far? If you say, I question perception, then the questioning of questioning your perception of things is already flawed, from the start! Your framework for representing the ontology of things is what's wrong. Try and come up with different methods in producing an absolute framework, that's more productive, and quit worrying about the ontology, because you know it will always be wrong (or skewed).

Why? Because you've already used the 5 senses and the mind to question your perception. Then you'll say, well, I'll question the questioning of my perception, and then I'll question the questioning of questioning my perception even further! And you see how it'll go on for infinity without going anywhere.

Haz reminds me of a chicken with its head cut off running around in circles. You, bob, remind me of a fat white guy trying to catch the headless chicken running around in circles (I use the fat white guy because he's slow and easily entertained). If only you were smart enough to run the other direction, you'd see that the chicken would come to you...
you have no idea what you're talking about do you? and the bold bit - that's just to emphasise your extreme bullshit which you use to cover your stupidity (and not very well, i might add) and what 'infinity' argument have i brought up? none. you just made that entire bit up and it doesn't even make sense.

and here's one for you dipshit - i'm a girl. i go to a girl's school. the second top school in the state. and i know that i'm more intelligent than you, as you have proven that to me time and again. you're a disgrace to the usually intelligent asian community. your mother is ashamed. i spit on you.

NearokA
31-10-2004, 06:27 PM
and here's one for you dipshit - i'm a girl. i go to a girl's school. the second top school in the state. and i know that i'm more intelligent than you, as you have proven that to me time and again. you're a disgrace to the usually intelligent asian community. your mother is ashamed. i spit on you.

I love you too Bob. Spread love, not hate. hehe. Top schools mean nothing. If you think you're top shit because you think you're getting the very best education, then you'd be fallen to one of Bacon's idols of the mind. Specifically, idols of the cave. Please look at my preivous thread concerning this if you don't know what I'm talking about.

You still haven't fixed your infinity arguement. I guess you don't know how to if you have to result to name calling. I'll take it that you're really fustrated and don't know how to proceed. I'll come back later and offer some frameworks of reality that different philosophers have conjured. We can argue about the validity and soundness of the frameworks okay? And once we agree on a framework, then we can move on to the ontology. And after the ontology, then we can address the soul, love, justice, freedom, etc.

You see bob, framework is one of those words people use differently. I have a framework of the universe, and you do too. And you see here we mean two very different things. The same works for extentialism.

bob
31-10-2004, 06:38 PM
Top schools mean nothing. If you think you're top shit because you think you're getting the very best education, then you'd be fallen to one of Bacon's idols of the mind.
you're bacon's bitch, ain't you? yes, i value a good education. it prevents me from turning out like you.

You still haven't fixed your infinity arguement. I guess you don't know how to if you have to result to name calling. I'll take it that you're really fustrated and don't know how to proceed. I'll come back later and offer some frameworks of reality that different philosophers have conjured. We can argue about the validity and soundness of the frameworks okay? And once we agree on a framework, then we can move on to the ontology. And after the ontology, then we can address the soul, love, justice, freedom, etc.
ah see, you could be a politician (cos they're dumb fucks anyway) first you make up some random crap - the 'infinity' theory - insist that i came up with it (which i haven't. i already said i don't believe in 'infinity', everything comes to an end. existential nihilist, get it through your thick head) and then you say that you'll only address the issues i've been discussing once i address 'my' infinity theory.

basically, you refuse to face reason and instead suggest that we talk around in circles so that your stupidity won't come to light. too late, mate.

plus i've lost 'a doll's house' and i don't get my yearbook till i find it and return it. so adieu.

NearokA
31-10-2004, 06:42 PM
you're bacon's bitch, ain't you? yes, i value a good education. it prevents me from turning out like you.


ah see, you could be a politician (cos they're dumb fucks anyway) first you make up some random crap - the 'infinity' theory - insist that i came up with it (which i haven't. i already said i don't believe in 'infinity', everything comes to an end. existential nihilist, get it through your thick head) and then you say that you'll only address the issues i've been discussing once i address 'my' infinity theory.

basically, you refuse to face reason and instead suggest that we talk around in circles so that your stupidity won't come to light. too late, mate.

plus i've lost 'a doll's house' and i don't get my yearbook till i find it and return it. so adieu.

Circles have no end. lol. You just contradicted yourself. hehe. Sorry bob, I just had to. A sine wave has no end either. It looks as if your framework needs lots of tweaking.

btw, I do edit my posts so please look back over them.

Hazzle
01-11-2004, 01:14 AM
My friend. Some quick points:

1) You say if our perceptions of things was wrong all our experimentation and inventions would lead to nothing? Who says they haven't dipshit? If your perception is warped, you only THINK your microwave cooks...you only THINK that the computer you're on is ACTUALLY working and that this great thing called the internet actually works. For all we both know, we may not objectively be having this conversation, you may just be a figment of my imagination and this argument may just be something I concocted in my head. Incidentally, I often DO argue with myself, so I wouldn't be surprised if the entire world I've "experienced" isn't just a dream.

2) You say "Why do you do this?" or "Why don't you do that?", if our perceptions are wrong? Well I didn't say they were...I said they MIGHT be. I may ACTUALLY be feeling pain when you "kick my arse" (not that you could...I'd break you before you got close), or I may not...do I want to take that risk? My life MAY be meaningless, I may not actually exist, but what if I do? If I do exist, then I should live my life. I should probably point out I've tried to end my life before...so asking me why I bother is probably pointless, as I ask myself that fucking question every morning. That's depression for ya ;) Why don't we go around killing people? Well people do, don't they? You seem to think just because everything may not exist, that would lead to some sort of anarchy...but just because something MAY not exist doesn't mean any consequences need follow from that. People don't do it because there are moral and physical consequences that have an impact on them. Now this impact may or may not be ACTUALLY happening but as far as they're concerned, it is. Wasn't it you who said so long as your life has meaning to you, it has meaning? I agree...it may not OBJECTIVELY have meaning, but human beings are not creatures of objective reasoning. We use subjective reasoning, and as such if we perceive something to be hurting us, we tend to wish it'd stop. And what if it really IS happening? Then again, I don't know why I bother as Bob's right...your brain is like a brick wall. I've never met anyone with a brain quite like yours...no...I lie...I've met a few people as rigidly narrow minded as you, and they're all idiots who frustrate me endlessly as I try and actually DISCUSS with them rather than batter my head against a brick wall. I'm sick of arguing with you...I may post my thoughts, you may deconstruct them, but all you're doing is sticking rigidly to your position like a stubborn fool...and everyone sees you for what you are.

3) You say experimentation leads us closer to the truth? Who says? Who says we just don't think it leads us closer to absolute truth? Y'see you can this line of reasoning is pointless, as it leads nowhere, but it does lead somewhere. It leads to this conclusion. Either we exist, or we don't. If we do, we may have a purpose, we may not. If we do have a purpose, we may be able to fathom that, we may not. See where I'm headed? You just say "things are this way" and that isn't philosophy, that isn't thinking, that's being narrow minded. I'll stick with what Socrates said over Bacon any day mate. I prefer to try and learn what I can, whether it's true or not, because it's all I have. I however value some things above knowledge. Because whether this existence is meaningless, objectively or not, maybe I can bring meaning TO it by having good friends, and being loved by people. Which is something you clearly have forgotten...what is it like being so unloved? Suppose that's why you're so narcissistic, is it? Deep down you're insecure about being so unloved? Shame that.

4) How much you're stopping yourself for insulting US on our stupidity? Mate when I withdrew from this argument I was so fucking angry I could've fucking smashed your skull to pieces in order to try and smack some sense into it. Sadly...you lack the capacity to reason, or to open your mind up. See open minded people tend to be more intelligent...Bob's given me some things to think about...because I'm open minded...as have you, surprisingly enough...but you're too fucking thick to do the same.

5) Existentialism only has one meaning, so stop with the bullshitting. You had no idea what it meant. Same with Ontology as you're actually using it wrongly. The irony is bob's not worried about Ontology as she doesn't believe in it. You're the one who believes if you perceive something is real, it is. Even if that perception is in the mind...which sounds not too far removed from Ontology. You're also a fan of Descarte, I take it from your defence of him...so you're the ontologist mate.

6) Nearoka...stop being an arse. When Bob said everything ends, she meant that chronologically everything must come to an end. She meant infinity, as in the chronological term, does not exist. You, however, are using it in the mathematical sense. And also, who is to say the circle has no end? Maybe if you look REALLY closely you may find it ;)

I'm actually amazed...I thought you couldn't be more of an arse Nearoka but you're managing it quite well...carry on making yourself the laughing stock of the forums...if I feel the need to prod you every so often to show yourself up more, I'll do so.

Bob...don't let the fucktard frustrate you. I know it's frustrating when you're trying to communicate with someone but they're too fucking closed minded to actually comprehend what you're saying, but communication breakdowns are part of life. I know it's a lot harder when someone is SO narrow minded that it blocks all in-coming traffic and they can only spew forth more crap...it's just that Nearoka here is a classic narcissist...and thus anything anyone else says, unless it agrees with him, has to be wrong, as he is infallible. We know otherwise...but leave the poor fool to his delusions.

As Socrates said... the wisest man is he who knows he knows not. Nearoka clearly isn't a wise man then ;)

NearokA
01-11-2004, 05:03 AM
ARe you going to fix your infinity arguement or not?
First we get the framework, then we get the ontology, then we find the soul. Ontology is what one uses to model everything in the universe. Framework is the tools you use to build the ontology. What are you guys using ontology as? Does bob really believe in no model to represent the world?

Extentialism has many meaings, just as the color blue means many things. When people say stuff, often the other just assumes what he means. It's not that the meaning themselves are wholly different, they are used in a different context to convey certain degrees or emphasize certain ideas within the word. I don't know how to explain it, all I'd like to get clear is that we're talking about the same thing.

Please correct any assumptions:
P1). Haz doesn't want to disucuss souls, he believes it's meaningless
P2). Haz believes it's meaningless because he questions our perceptions.
C1). Therefore, because of the ambiguity of perceptions, Haz doesn't want to talk about anything other than trying to "prove" reality.

The problem I have is with p2. How can you question the perceptions of things if what you are using to question them comes from a relative standpoint to begin with? All your questioning leads you to is running around in circles like a headless chicken. Because what if the questioning of questioning your perceptions is wrong (and it is, unless you can question perceptions from an absolute framework)? Then you'll have to start questioning more and more and more...

Okay. Now let's get clear what I'm talking about. Bacon doesn't seek to change the framework (ie using tools like 5 senses and mind), what he does seek is to change the model (the ontology). Through experiments, we can understand the absolute, hopefully, because what we're doing is changing the model from relative understanding to absolute understanding with time and with collective mind.

Decartes is the same way. Using 5 senses and the mind to create an ontology of the universe. However, there is a slight difference between them. I would think that Decartes thinks that the 5 sense are relative, but the mind is absolute. So to see the absolute, you need only to meditate.

Kant tries something different. He believes in changing the framework, and not the model. Kant says that acting absolutely are acts that stem from moral acts. Kant says at the heart of every being, there lies the good will (or free will, he uses them interchangibly). Now on top of the good will, there are the inclinations (ie environment, peers, upbringing etc). On top of inclinations, lies emotions. Kant says doing acts which are absolute are doing acts from purely the good will. Which means an individual must rid himself of inclinations and emotions. The underlying point is the only way to act in the absolute is to act in moral ways which can be universalized into law (ie work for every situation).

And then we have people who believe that the whole of everything are just images in the mind. For them, their framework is the mind, and their ontology exists in another dimension projecting images into our dimension. They don't care for Haz's question, they already know everything's skewed.

And then we have people who believe that the whole of everything is reality, and what's the illusion is your mind. Their framework is only the 5 senses, and their ontology is the objects themselves, because they are the real. For them, Haz's question has no meaning. Perception is reality.

And finally we have the religous. They have the framework of 5 senses. However, their ontology lies with God. God is the model of all things. He is also their mind. If God is absolute, then I would assume they want the models of things to be absolute as well.

If you can think of a framework that doesn't consist of the 5 senses or the mind, I'd be happy to hear it. So pick a framework, and let's begin building our ontology.

Hazzle
02-11-2004, 01:04 AM
You're an idiot. You used ontology repeatedly and yet say my question is irrelevant. Do you even know what Ontology means?

Ontology
(Gk., n, ‘being’, + logos, ‘reflection’). Reflection in philosophy and metaphysics on what truly exists, or on what underlies appearance by way of existent reality.

And what was my question again? Oh yes...what truly exists? So I think that's game set and match to me...fucktard.

Oh...and you fail to acknowledge that in my model, the mind too is a false perception...my framework would be that nothing exists, our mind, our senses, are all false...as such "reality" is all a series of false illusions. We need not build a model of the universe as the universe does not exist.

Except that unlike you, I'm not narcissistic enough to believe my framework has to be true, and rather than risk it, I choose to act AS IF the "reality" I think is there, the reality I see with my 5 senses...ie the "reality" my 6 different perceptions all tell me is there...is actually there, whilst still being cynical enough to question if it really is.

You see you go on about meditation, and yet you cannot meditate on the fundamental question of existence...you cannot think for thought's sake, for you there has to be an end product...as such you're narrow minded and shouldn't indulge in philosophy.

I never did like scientists dabbling in philosophy. Aristotle can kiss my arse, give me Plato and Socrates any day.

Bacon...is wrong...as he states the absolute truth, and absolute knowledge is attainable through science, and it is not.

Descartes...is wrong...as he states the absolute truth, and absolute knowledge is attainable through thought, and it is not.

Kant...incidentally the bit of Kant that you used, that of good will, was later used by nietzsche, and whilst I happen to like reading his work, it was also used by the Nazis to justify their acts. So I wouldn't be using Kant myself...plus he's wrong as again, the absolute is unattainable, and anyway, man cannot rid himself of inclinations, and man's soul is ultimately evil if it exists at all anyway. Man will never act on free will...end of story.

So whichever of those frameworks you wish to choose, you're wrong. Because you seek the absolute, and the Forms are incapable of comprehension by our minds. If you're unsure what I mean, try reading The Republic by Plato...except I go further and state here and now that no man, ever, has been the "philosopher king" model. In fact, noone has even come close.

If we do not even know what 90% of our brain function does (since apparently we only use 10%) then what exactly DO we know? If one does not know one's mind, what is the point thinking of anything else? See even your own science fails you, as it cannot tell you what 90% of your brain does. Checkmate, my friend.

DragonRat
02-11-2004, 01:30 AM
Though as I read The Republic, it seems Plato defined the auxiliaries and guardians (philosopher-kings) as those who were deemed capable of understanding virtue, and that the guardians themselves were deemed capable of breaking out of the allegorical Cave and witness not only the reflections from the water, but the bright, shining Sun (the Good) itself. Perhaps Plato believed the Good to be absolute knowledge.

And the only reason why the philosopher-king model has never even appeared, is that it requires an ideal city of ideal citizens. When Plato states that he would be able to convince the citizenry to accept the guardian as ruler, then it must be done by any means necessary, even if that requires intentional force. All that matters is that the philosopher-king knows what is right, and does the right thing. Whether or not we know is irrelevant.

As for the possibility of absolute knowledge, I myself have not ventured forth to proffer anything. I doubt we as a race can ever achieve absolute knowledge. Most of all the scientific framework that has existed as curricula for decades is still theory. However, I think we must strive as a race, to attempt to find absolute knowledge. As Pandora's Box we open, so too we leave it for Hope to enter.

As for reality v. perception, I once read a philosophy article related to The Matrix that, regardless of whether or not we could believe we were living in the now (and not the future), we could never know for sure. Indeed, all that the senses give us are neural impulses to parts of the brain, that feedback to reveal a response. We could live our entire lives in the so-called Matrix and not know (and not care really). But what does that mean then? I have no idea really, but it does put a kink in the idea of absolutism, since perception could very well be reality, but could not, and thus reveal things in a relativistic light.

However, I as a moderate reader of theology and apologetics, do believe in absolutism. I can believe in absolutism in a supernatural sense, surrounding a relativistic and natural universe. Because, even with all the possibilities of philosophy, I do truly think there is always one side or the other. Politically, there will always be a spectrum, but there will always be one Good and one Evil. (And I tend to believe the former stronger than the latter.)

So yeah, I cop out by saying I believe in absolutism in a relativistic world. So there.

Hazzle
02-11-2004, 02:49 AM
Though as I read The Republic, it seems Plato defined the auxiliaries and guardians (philosopher-kings) as those who were deemed capable of understanding virtue, and that the guardians themselves were deemed capable of breaking out of the allegorical Cave and witness not only the reflections from the water, but the bright, shining Sun (the Good) itself. Perhaps Plato believed the Good to be absolute knowledge.

And the only reason why the philosopher-king model has never even appeared, is that it requires an ideal city of ideal citizens. When Plato states that he would be able to convince the citizenry to accept the guardian as ruler, then it must be done by any means necessary, even if that requires intentional force. All that matters is that the philosopher-king knows what is right, and does the right thing. Whether or not we know is irrelevant.

I think you have a slightly narrow reading of Plato there. I think "the Good" for Plato, the ultimate virtue, is truth. But for me, absolute knowledge must be unobtainable to those who cannot see truth. For if one cannot see the veracity of their knowledge, then it isn't absolute knowledge at all. Absolute knowledge requires absolute truth. See I've always said that knowing what virtue is, what is morally correct, requires a knowledge of the true state of affairs...as Plato's analogy of the cave suggests...our perceptions of everything are distorted by not seeing the light itself, but only shadows. Y'see...for example...if you shine a light on a small object the right way, it can appear much bigger than it truly is. Therefore, we are not seeing the way it TRULY is, and thus truth is obscured. Once we are outside of the cave, we can see things as they truly are, and then and only then can truth, and from it absolute knowledge, be derived.

The reason I believe the philosopher king model has never appeared, however, has nothing to do with whether there has been the ideal city. You see I think again you misread Plato...the philosopher king must actually exist before the rest of the Utopia can take its form around him...but I believe no human being HAS ever seen the form of truth, or the form of knowledge. Without these two things, it is impossible for ANYONE to know if what they are doing is the right thing or not. One must know everything before one can truly KNOW anything, if you wish me to put it in one line.

NearokA
02-11-2004, 03:11 AM
Haz, you're very...energetic. hehe.

No, no, no. You can't use a relative framework to question the absoluteness of your ontology (and yes, I'm using ontology as a method to model the universe). You see your infinity arguement yet?

How can you, a mere man, using 6 perceptions, even know if absoluteness was right in your face? You see, even if you come up with an answer to your question, someone else will come along, and ask the question again, and then again, and then again....etc. And all you've been doing is not seeking the aboslute, but diving more in depth into the world of relativism (because everyone's using their relative framework). You have to stand from and absolute perspective, to even ask that question haz (and you see here, asking the question then is pointless, because you already see the absolute).

To fix your question, don't ask it, and pardon my American, but it's stupid (that's why I called you a headless chicken). Rather, try and find a way to get to the absolute using either the 6 perceptions, or make a new framework like Kant tried (it's actually quite compeling, I thought, but the problem is, no one can use his categorical imperative to create a universal law, and his 3rd forumlation is my favorite, you know, the stuff about freedom). O and HAz, please refrain from stupid arguments like Hilter used Kant, so Kant must be evil. You know what? Hilter prolly drank beer. So that means all beer drinkers in the world support the Nazi regime. The absurdity! lol.

Or don't even hope to try. Just let it be. And we can now move on to ontologies (and I'll assume the framework to be the 5 senses and mind). See Haz, we're using ontology two different ways. Aren't you glad I cleared up the fact that I was using ontology as a way of modeling the universe and not just merely "reflecting"? And bob, you see when you said no infinity, you didn't specify any thing else. I took it to mean literally, you think there is no infinity. lol. Please bob, what does existentialism mean to you (if you want to use a generic dictionary, it's fine by me, just that we're clear that we mean the same thing when we use the word)?

And Dragonrat, you're very welcome to discuss!! :D Dragonrat, what Plato does, Aristrotle made better. Read Aristrotle, he fills all the holes and gaps in Plato's arguments (especially about Plato's analogy on the cave, or the double divided line[they the same thing, just different representations]). And don't mind Haz Dragonrat, he's just depressed (or confused, perhaps a little too much running around in circles, eh?). :p

And what is with you Brits and fucktard? lol. Haz, give those guys credit. At least they're trying, which is more than I can say about you. hehe. And I just noticed something, Haz and Plato seem to share the same infinity problem. Aristrotle isn't as pretentious as Plato in trying to question the reality of things. INstead, he questions why things are the way they are in reality (the way we see it). Thus he does avoid the infinity of abstract form (ie a form within a form within a form etc). Aristrotle still believes in forms, but he puts it in another way. He binds form to reality, instead of leaving it off in another dimension.

Some examples of the absolute (and here I take absolute as standing for all time [infinity to -infinity] and universal). Math is a concept that stands for all time (even in the stone age, 1+1=2, even when the earth was born, 1 amino acid and another amino acid make 2 amino acids) and is universal (ie if I go to the sun, the math equations will still hold. If I fly to another galaxy, 1+1=2). Electron motion is absolute. Electrons move in a cloud surrounding the atom bounded by orbitals, and if enough energy is present, the electrons will either enter a higher state of energy, or zoom off into the oblivion of space (only to be captured by another atom). This statement holds universal, wouldn't you think? Unless you want to be an ass and say in the next solar system, there are no electrons. Why don't you prove it? (actually, if you ask that question, you'll just end up making yourself look stupid). And most certainly it holds for all time. It would be really scary if say tomorrow, elements started breaking down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. We may be wrong Haz, I know since we've never actually seen this behavior. But the model nevertheless still holds, since we base all our electronics on this model and it seems to work just fine.

Disclaimer: HAz and bob, I may call you stupid but I don't mean to demean your intelligence to the level of spire. I just mean you're stupid relative to me. keke :) (I create threads like this precisely to weed out those who can't read and think).

PS: You punks, I can't upload even 200kb? wtf? lol. Well, I was going to upload the New Oreganon, but if it's too big, o well.

Hazzle
02-11-2004, 10:40 PM
Aristotle wasn't fit to lick Plato's boots. End of story. The very fact you disagree shows how little you know about philosophy. Aristotle was a scientist dabbling in philosophy and suffered from the same problems you do. Philosophy IS about reflecting, not about modelling. It's about pursuing "meaningless" questions, rather than modelling and trying to find answers...that's what science seeks to do. Whenever anyone tries to cross the dividing line, that's when they fuck up.

Oh, and I didn't say you shouldn't use Kant because Kant was evil, my dimwitted friend, I was pointing how a philosophy that spoke about morality and acting from "good will" was used to justify genocide. It not only is ironic it makes Kant's observations worthy of questioning.

It's not at all akin to saying Hitler drank beer, therefore beer drinkers are evil. That's an idiotic comparison to make. The fact Kant's PHILOSOPHY was used to underpin Nazi PHILOSOPHY is worthy of note...see the connection yet? Oh, and incidentally? Hitler never touched a drop of alcohol in his life. Which you'd know if you were more worldly.

NearokA
05-11-2004, 10:32 PM
.The fact Kant's PHILOSOPHY was used to underpin Nazi PHILOSOPHY is worthy of note...see the connection yet?

You know, there are some serial killers that use the bible as a means of reason to do the murders they do.

It's not about the author, it's about the language interpretation. You see people taking words to mean wholly different than what they were intended. sigh. Alas, we are back to the language problem. Why couldn't we all just talk in numbers? Then there'll be no confusion. hehe.

Plato's arguement is filled with as much holes as swiss cheese. But I suppose if you haven't yet seen your infinity arguement, you'll never see Plato's. Btw, I eat chickens for breakfast, lunch, AND dinner. keke. :icon_nana

Hazzle
07-11-2004, 12:25 AM
Ok, were you drunk when you posted that? Because the bits about language and chickens made...err...no sense.

Oh wait...your posts never make sense...my bad.

NearokA
07-11-2004, 12:43 AM
Ok, were you drunk when you posted that? Because the bits about language and chickens made...err...no sense.

Oh wait...your posts never make sense...my bad.

Right you are Haz! I'm always drunk when I be on these forums! Arrrr matety! *hiccup!*

PS you should come to UofWash Haz, there are hella hot chicks just chillin' in the law library. You know what they're there for. *Wink wink. Send me a copy of your degree and some of your law books, hehe. I demand proof of what you say!

Hazzle
07-11-2004, 02:08 AM
Right you are Haz! I'm always drunk when I be on these forums! Arrrr matety! *hiccup!*

PS you should come to UofWash Haz, there are hella hot chicks just chillin' in the law library. You know what they're there for. *Wink wink. Send me a copy of your degree and some of your law books, hehe. I demand proof of what you say!

Heh. Yah...Law at Uni was always filled with hot girls...weird that...and I'm not entirely sober myself but it takes a fair whack to actually make Teh Haz drunk. I do love my Guinness though...arrr.

The proof'll follow when I can be fucking arsed. If you're that bothered (which I doubt you are).