Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
There used to be a method of thought that began with wonder, then it began with speculation, then it began with doubt. With all three as the beginning one had a method of inquiry and exploration, one had philosophy; evidently, all one now has is nothing, and what is passing as philosophy now, what is passing as high thought now, is really just opinionated bias. So much for seeking the truth. Philosophy has really found itself on hard times, how pathetic.
There used to be a method of thought that began with wonder, then it began with speculation, then it began with doubt. With all three as the beginning one had a method of inquiry and exploration, one had philosophy; evidently, all one now has is nothing, and what is passing as philosophy now, what is passing as high thought now, is really just opinionated bias. So much for seeking the truth. Philosophy has really found itself on hard times, how pathetic.
Philosophy...Websters,
Love, study,pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge esp. that which deals , with
ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things.
God : Creator and ruler of universe
Physics: Science of the properties and nature of matter
Basically my opinion is that man would have to undergo a broad sweeping
perpetual lobotomy to debunk his interest and dedication to all three of
above esp. philosophy.
Lets propose a thought experiment to get some perspective.
We first resurrect a dozen of the finest philosophers known to man pre
1900. We then disclose updates as follows :
a) The scientific fact of Darwinism
b) The scientific fact of geology
c) The scientific fact of general and gravitational relativity......
( any doubts ...see GPS utilizing both...(physical proof)
d) The scientific fact of our solar sun's life expectancy
Because philosophy as seen in its description as ....
"Love, study,pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge esp. that which deals , with
ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things."
the engaged philosophers would then request as they are wise thinkers,
"time"....time to re-evaluate wisdom put forth based on the updates.
The end result would of course be an all together different product as the updates are serve as germ to the foundation of the ultimate reality of
our existence.
Therefore : In above thought experiment it would be expected that a
contemporary philosopher would highlight and take "great consideration"
to the , what could be called development or growth in mans knowledge of what is ultimately real.
If above is true, what follows in reasonable application.
.........." Philosophy requires Updating".........
Can it be done in a nano second ? I don't think so. Philosophy obviously
has not found itself on hard times as mentioned in above quote by Allen Antrim, philosophy has much work to do, more work than it has "ever
realized" as that what the source of data has placed on the lap of wisdom in pursuit.
Also : This can be interpreted as a hint in approach learned.
In nature we see that conformity co-operation in a process will not
is void of rigid. Our thinking cannot be rigid, is that worth thinking about ?
Well, what exactly do you mean ? our thinking mustn't be rigid. We in our thinking would be rigid if we came to conclude without leaving a door open for speculation. So what are you saying ?
Closing the door with Hasty philosophy does not allow for continued updates as seen above which are in keeping with the initial target in
the purpose for philosophy , that being the wisdom accumulated for and from ultimate reality.
In conclusion , we have logically eliminated loss of enthusiasm for
philosophy as described ....having found itself in hard times......
Quite the contrary....theres major updating that will be attended to.
It will be done , slowly with copiously applied wisdom in the manner that
we would envision a great philosopher to address.
In finality, if there is a source or God as creator of universe....
it could be reasonably thought or..at least hoped hold much of the key to understanding its source being a possible God.
Note....It would be worth considering the possibility of mentioned origin
of the Universe and its existance....
....Of Being A Consequence of The Source-(God).....
rather than the illogically "assumed" role of
..Causation...( not a belief or position "at all' just an "open door thought")
Above is simply a thought to show the magnificent amount of work Philosophy has at its doorstep,
Not hard times at all...."Buisness is Too Good" !
Theist's answers about God are never good (called "irrational") because they realized the irrationality of their beliefs -- and that's why they always say "God is incomprehensible -- need faith"
My opinion and its just an opinion is that the theist is like a scientist, for example....
When Newton uncovered "classical physics" he made many mistakes but, as well made many assertions.
Did Einstein or the great scientist Planck upon their contributions call Newton out and
suggest his answers are never good and as well suggestions of intentional deception. ? I think "intentional deception" is the point of order thats being made here and absolutely would be true in many area's depending on whats being read. Its good to go forward.
A person should be comfortable with what they believe, so maybe interpreting "comfort' is the challenge in view....... Heres an idea...
Imagine you visit yourself at 99yrs of age and have a chat with yourself...are you guys "comfortable" ?
Last edited by stargazzer; 04-09-2010 at 01:13 PM..
I don't believe I was saying, say, philosophy on the grand scale (maybe you should read my little post instead of pontificating on the glories of thought; some thought is smaller scaled and not world historical; perhaps the question, "is religious or theological thought rational or not" is not answerable here-some philosophy thread this is; however, one gets resurrecting the dead in some thought experiment instead; please don't use me as an opportunity to run your mouth, you sound like that guy who runs Iran), just as it pertains to this little ol' "philosophy thread", and will promptly be forgotten in its historical littleness-one might say I was being a little sarcastic; perhaps humorous (at least for myself), here at the data forum bar. When one states the "truth" (as a poster did here, and if that one really new this truth about the subject of his hate, I doubt if his fame would end here, but would have rung throughout academia and book deals; surely 20/20 would want an interview, Voltaire had the same idea all those years ago, and he has a book out), when one thinks one knows the "truth", the hunt is over. When the cosmos is so large, when knowledge seems unending and then one, in one's short singular life span, that one indicates that he/she knows all nooks and crannies on a topic, knows the "truth"-that one is no longer philosophizing, but a truth barker. If religion is just a lie, well one must have all insights into the matter for making such a definitive bit of absoluteness-perhaps one could say that one is lost in the incomprehensible; of nature and thought, and then one is forced to wonder if that one can believe all those other things that pertain to this form of the incomprehensible; maybe they have reached that "ultimate reality" deal you pushed around (whatever that is-such a cliched term for the New Agers now, sort of like the ol' higher plane deal), and instead of going through it all, merely takes a short cut and announces the results without traversing the whole circular route, as if one got hold of the truth on credit, and will do the hard work some other time. I think it was you stargazzer, who chastized me for actually using the name of a philosopher early on-how disappointed you were in me- in my post on this so called philosophical thread (that was strange on a philosophy thread, me using a real philosopher(!), but I think rambles and incomplete sentences that go no where explain it all me), and now you quote Webster; how impressive. My little "wonder", "speculation", and "doubt" description comes from philosophy, not a dictionary.
I don't believe I was saying, say, philosophy on the grand scale (maybe you should read my little post instead of pontificating on the glories of thought; some thought is smaller scaled and not world historical; perhaps the question, "is religious or theological thought rational or not" is not answerable here-some philosophy thread this is; however, one gets resurrecting the dead in some thought experiment instead; please don't use me as an opportunity to run your mouth, you sound like that guy who runs Iran), just as it pertains to this little ol' "philosophy thread", and will promptly be forgotten in its historical littleness-one might say I was being a little sarcastic; perhaps humorous (at least for myself), here at the data forum bar. When one states the "truth" (as a poster did here, and if that one really new this truth about the subject of his hate, I doubt if his fame would end here, but would have rung throughout academia and book deals; surely 20/20 would want an interview, Voltaire had the same idea all those years ago, and he has a book out), when one thinks one knows the "truth", the hunt is over. When the cosmos is so large, when knowledge seems unending and then one, in one's short singular life span, that one indicates that he/she knows all nooks and crannies on a topic, knows the "truth"-that one is no longer philosophizing, but a truth barker. If religion is just a lie, well one must have all insights into the matter for making such a definitive bit of absoluteness-perhaps one could say that one is lost in the incomprehensible; of nature and thought, and then one is forced to wonder if that one can believe all those other things that pertain to this form of the incomprehensible; maybe they have reached that "ultimate reality" deal you pushed around (whatever that is-such a cliched term for the New Agers now, sort of like the ol' higher plane deal), and instead of going through it all, merely takes a short cut and announces the results without traversing the whole circular route, as if one got hold of the truth on credit, and will do the hard work some other time. I think it was you stargazzer, who chastized me for actually using the name of a philosopher early on-how disappointed you were in me- in my post on this so called philosophical thread (that was strange on a philosophy thread, me using a real philosopher(!), but I think rambles and incomplete sentences that go no where explain it all me), and now you quote Webster; how impressive. My little "wonder", "speculation", and "doubt" description comes from philosophy, not a dictionary.
Something , I don't know what it was , whispered in my ear that good ole Allen Antrim will , instead of commenting good thought or the like..........
Will find in the face of extraordinary insights a frustration in self administration to the point of rejection including slanting guesses of ...oh yes Allen Atrim says
"but I think rambles and incomplete sentences that go no where explain it all me), and now you quote Webster; how impressive. My little "wonder", "speculation", and "doubt" description comes from philosophy, not a dictionary.[/quote]".....................................
Stargazzer says:
You refuse to learn.
Let me say that in life I have found that "children" often enlighten with their spontaneous quips and innocent rebuttal.
You on the other hand are rigid in thought . My post is thought provoking as usual and its not "my fault" that it is, " I " who produced it.
Theres no point in debating who allocates common sense.
Common sense makes up its own mind
The tree , Allen Antrim
will snap if , it Will not bend with nature.
Read the entire thread from beginning to end "slowly with patience".
That way when I come back I have something to do, cause this is
degrading to my time and attention....
Last Chance for constructive feedback !
Please re read entire thread and leave emotions at the door .
Why did you post this ? There really isn't a point, just a frustration
theme that seems to wave through your contributions...
Whats really up with this ? Whats the real deal here ?
Something is knawing at the Allen Antrim agenda
Last edited by stargazzer; 04-10-2010 at 12:58 AM..
The topic brought up here maybe one the fundamental differences in debates between theists and atheists.
Theists propose a "God", but refuse to provide any evidence. Instead, theists ask atheists to find evidence to reject theist's proposal.
The God question isn't a lottery - If I am right, I win a million dollars or something. You either believe in God or you don't. Are you saying, I have to have proof before I believe? Most likely not. Some people might want atheists to prove this or that, but I don't. I have faith that God exists and if you don't that is fine with me. While you are looking through the natural world for evidence (if you do), I say, you are walking all over the evidence. That's all!
Looking at everything .. sometimes we expect too much out of others.
This causes's me to say so-long to thread through expecting too
much out of others.
At least relationship threads have a bit of fun stuff, who needs this (looking at entire thread) I"M OUT.....
The God question isn't a lottery - If I am right, I win a million dollars or something. You either believe in God or you don't. Are you saying, I have to have proof before I believe? Most likely not. Some people might want atheists to prove this or that, but I don't. I have faith that God exists and if you don't that is fine with me. While you are looking through the natural world for evidence (if you do), I say, you are walking all over the evidence. That's all!
Charles
Did you walk on the lawn in a park this morning? You could step on something unpleasant (that maybe the evidence of yours).
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
