U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 04-01-2012, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Ashburn, Va
3,192 posts, read 1,485,054 times
Reputation: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
I have been away awhile so I dropped in, and on looking through the threads I see that a philosophical discussion, or even a question, is no where to be found, just the same mindless drivel. Anyone actually attempting to learn anything other than their caprice, feeling, or opinion?
We all missed you so much. You must be a blast at parties.

 
Old 04-01-2012, 04:32 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 13,428,499 times
Reputation: 6448
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Actually I find Russell pretty interesting. He was wrong or odd on a variety of issues, not necessarily meaning religion, but he did a good deal for math and was a pretty smart guy.
 
Old 04-01-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,594 posts, read 17,757,941 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
Actually I find Russell pretty interesting. He was wrong or odd on a variety of issues, not necessarily meaning religion, but he did a good deal for math and was a pretty smart guy.
He was...Dumb asses don't win Nobel prizes.
 
Old 04-01-2012, 05:45 PM
 
3,449 posts, read 1,319,314 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
He was...Dumb asses don't win Nobel prizes.
How can turkeys believe in themselves, never mind being more then garble-garble... Thats what I don't understand.
 
Old 04-01-2012, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,594 posts, read 17,757,941 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
How can turkeys believe in themselves, never mind being more then garble-garble... Thats what I don't understand.
What is that supposed to mean?
 
Old 04-01-2012, 06:07 PM
 
3,449 posts, read 1,319,314 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
What is that supposed to mean?
It means that after a couple of minutes listening, its realized that if he set out all the rules he has for believing in something equally for himself, he wouldn't bother eating his dinner. (Plus on a side note who cares about paragraphs or even spelling where theres some quality going on. )

plus..I'm going out for some chicken...every time I do that I regret it for some reason, once every two months or so, but anyway, how can this guy in the tape believe in himself with all the rules on what is worth believing in? what exactly are the acceptable standards.
 
Old 04-01-2012, 06:08 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,146 posts, read 683,947 times
Reputation: 147
What about Gore and Obama? On the prize. Warning! All communication is dialectical and that is the social, therefore, all communication is up for deconstruction.

I find a lot of caprice and opinion here-no movement toward the idea. Opinion and such like are in the subjective, for you. I could care less about you or your opinions (as an abstract poster, most with an alias, I don't even care if you wake up tomorrow-you are not "real"), as far as learning anything-who wants to learn about you, who is so special here? What? Is philosophy about you? What is objective orientates itself towards the universal, that is what we share in common.

Nietzsche-the author is in charge of the punctuation, I like his idea, I got away from grammer teachers in school, now I can be in charge-the rabble are excused; if you can only work with simple sentences and such, well, what can I say? I put a pause where I want, and such; you not accepting that, what is that to me? The sad thing, as always, everyone knows everything, it is just that no one points it out or explains, which means actually, they don't know. Everyone loves form, its the content thats difficult.

Here is a free lesson. When you make a dogmatic statement, or assertion, without a corresponding structure to build that statement, opinion, assertion on, well, one is forced to accept you on your authority. This is great for your ego and your groupies, but the truth is you are a nobody, with no authority, no nothing. Just another chunk of semi-thinking meat, like all of us. This makes you look ridiculous (you most likely haven't even been on Oprah), as most of the posts have already proved themselves to be (skip the idea, attack the grammer, and don't even point out the flaws; just "my" say so is all one gets here; well your nothing without the structure). Philosophy does not operate in this way, well, a sensible philosophy. Usually an adult who wants to learn wades through the difficulty, ie, bad punctuation, lack of paragraphs (I have just read a 2 and one half page paragraph; the guy is dead and I can't whine; if I want to know what I read, I have to work with it, but I am not afraid as the notion is in it, and my parents taught me to work; I do not need Ronald McDonald to get me to the idea), difficult passages, etc. After all, existence does not come in a neat presentation-as the commie Lenin, said, "he who does not work does not eat." As far as philosophers not accepting of me, well I am okay with that, I am not one, as a gentleman, I have better things to do than to think, and especially if they are like what is here, then that is a compliment. The last living philosopher I heard talked about mind control from Mars. Then there is all the opinion laden crap of today, the feminist crap, etc, etc, etc, etc. I am comfortable with myself, what more do I need from others?
 
Old 04-02-2012, 02:00 AM
 
3,449 posts, read 1,319,314 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
What is that supposed to mean?
Alright I will re-answer the question. Also I checked out some other videos and got a quick overall of his style. Hes a mathematician I notice.Ive been busy tonight but will try to get a short idea in. And tom a work day so I donno
Plus this is simply a rough thought that simply tends to the short clip + very few other things...it looks like he had quite a career ....so can't be entirely on a specific theme, so I know this is jagged for now.

Bertrand Russel says:

Hes examined all the stock arguements & dogmas of the existence of God and none of them seem to be valid. The fundemental treachory in dishonesty is to hold a belief because its useful and not because you think its true.


Starg says:

People generally hold a god belief because it's normal to understand that like everything else known, the real, growing, maturing reality in self requires negotiation, just like everything else that matures, grows and is real.

People go out in the woods and say...oh what splendor, this is my spiritual experience no God required, no origin or religion non-sense, this is the only real inspiration. My natural environment. Ever feel that way in a dark desert? No....why?....because you can't be within what is unconsciously understood an abundance of consequence. ( btw, you can look up high in the desert and get the order effect)

Consequence is our evidence for order...consequence must concede to order otherwise... nothing can exist, not one leaf. The experience unanimously gives the mind no choice but to realize whether it approves , realizes or is even aware...the whole fundamental of absolutely everything is this thing called consequence, and that means order opposed to what man fears most...disorder. The disorder of a growing maturing self , a contributing reality to creation left...sadly..illogically....un-negotiated. The gardens or forest deny the fear in dis-order.



Its not that religion is useful, its impossible to ignore with everything that is known in existence...where everything happens for a reason and is never without a good reason for it. Plain and simple, a tree never dies, you could say the soil dies to the tree...no? The accomplished volume of self in constructive contribution would be the "only" growing persevering thing ever known, to simply cease to exist...this obscurity would be the extreme in fundemental treachory in not only dishonesty but denial of self, no doubt about it. The more material the materialist brings to the table, the more the company removes the evidence for safe keeping...The materialist does all the necessary gathering for the whole argument.

Bertran Russel says:

He says that ethic which is imposed on you from outside ( a lifestyle plan or religion) is of no value whatever..doesn't count.

The social extension of individual man is not just an extension, it is part of the human growing person by individual translation(abstract) of a persons understanding, of required contribution. Ethic is imposed by our social enviorement, if not then we can send the police home. It is imposed by everyone we come into contact with requiring regard for property ect ect. Each family would have parents who begin the process and all would be different...why? because all parents would of had different experience's and developed sensitivities...therefore each family and each town, time and all would have different.."outside" ethic perimeters. Thats all ethics are...rules, perimeters for suggesting what? social co-operation...and what does social co-operation need, moderation...people are not perfect, know this and need outside ethical boundries just like...respect for the land in which you build your family home... outside ethics in religion is simply a systems finding by theme in the religion, which basically is peace toward objective unity....many religions know that people are only human and rules will be broken....but the religion is honoring the creator first...in best understood regard for the creation-life, together with compassion, hopefully anyway in knowing...man just does the best he can...thats all there is to that.... I think if a bedraggled person with no education, no money, lousy cloths said basically the same things with a bland vocab, people would just ignore it flat out....because its so easy to argue. I think this career mind resented the idea of something centered or isolated as being in a suggested way superior. I don't really see anything really competing about a Source idea though.

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-02-2012 at 03:13 AM..
 
Old 04-02-2012, 04:50 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,504 posts, read 7,499,593 times
Reputation: 2595
Gosh. The definitions seem to spread quite wide. It seems that in fact philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge; any knowledge; all kinds of knowledge. That includes what have now become science, theology and the area of law and politics, mainly because methods were developed which could prove what was only speculated about. Those became the sciences.

Perhaps theology was also hived off because philosophers realized as soon as Abelard's time that the case for God and religion did not make logical sense and so theology is philosophy based on the assumption that religious teachings are true and all debate must be based on that assumption.

'Philosophy' as we now think of it seems to me to be still the logical speculations about all questions and can often usefully look at areas where science cannot yet go and religion doesn't care to. It also deals with a lot of moral problems which the law, science and politics might not address and it is right that we should listen to what philosophers have to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
I have occasionally tried to do threads on philosophies.

http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...entialism.html
http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...cureanism.html
http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...-stoicism.html
http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...entalists.html
http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...tarianism.html
http://www.city-dat***com/forum/reli...ositivism.html

Mostly these don't go anywhere. I think possibly the main areas that get interest here are

The Bible, generally meaning the Protestant canon, and whether it's good/bad or true/false.
Creationism vs Evolution
Atheism vs Evangelical Protestantism
Islam vs Everybody or Everybody vs Islam
Religious sex scandals
Homosexuality and Religion
Bashing (Atheists bashing religion or Religious bashing atheists)
Why there is or isn't a God. (This is philosophy too, but the religion aspect is more meant)

Things like "What is the Mind?" or "Is reality subjective or objective?" fairly often don't go far. (Although I think I did a thread on "what is human nature?" that did okay) Things on specific philosophies possibly do even less well.

It's not even just that though. Even religious things outside "the main areas" I think get limited interest. So a discussion on Russian Orthodoxy, "New Thought" churches, Mennonites, Ismailism, or Shinto would likely also not go very far. It's a fairly limited range, but I don't know if it can change.
That's very good, and does note the main areas of debate. I have to admit that I don't really understand philosophy and would just leave it to them to come up with the suggestions which can then be looked at for logical and evidential soundness. I am reminded of the matrix/Plantinga debate which made a philosophical case applied to the evolution of human consciousness and it was very erudite but logically unsound.

Thus I have to say that I am very distrustful of philosophy threads because they can so often (being rather speculative) be open to misuse, mostly by theists, I have got to say, trying to fiddle a case for God based on speculations and misuse of logical reasonin***

We get the same thing with the fiddling of science and history to make a case for God, too, but it's more evident where we have facts to go on.

Last edited by AREQUIPA; 04-02-2012 at 04:59 AM..
 
Old 04-02-2012, 05:30 AM
 
Location: FL
1,727 posts, read 997,143 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
I have been away awhile so I dropped in, and on looking through the threads I see that a philosophical discussion, or even a question, is no where to be found, just the same mindless drivel. Anyone actually attempting to learn anything other than their caprice, feeling, or opinion?

I'm glad your here. Could you start a few threads that you think would make things more interesting?


Maybe others will follow your example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top