I don't completely understand what you said....but I get most of it, I think. And I agree. I don't believe in freedom either. It's a nice ideal created by man, but it's just not possible.
Philosophy- Discuss Here
- Thread starter Mystique1721
- Start date
Chairman Kaga
Member
All I'm going to say is, I neither approve or disprove anything, I'm not one to see how others should see or anything like that. I'll just stay neutral and just do what I do in best of my judgement. I'll keep all ideas in mind, however.
It is not in the human nature to be "free", we're flock animals, we need to have a leader and someone to tell us what to do, we like complaining about it, but the ultimate truth is that we need it that way. Anarchism is fucking retarded. I'm glad we have leaders, no matter if a majority of them are corrupt as hell, it still makes the cogs turn faster than it would if we were in a state of anarchy and tribal warfare(epic lulz). I'm not saying corrupt leaders is good in any way though.
A funky thing to think about, is paradise
the thing we want because its the ultimate freedom and win
ironically enough, it means "walled enclosure" if you trace it back a few steps.
We like the security of a controlled environment.
Ofcourse i'm speaking generally here, but i cannot be arsed describing every goddamned personality in the world
closing words:
Fuck anarchism, and people who think its good
A funky thing to think about, is paradise
the thing we want because its the ultimate freedom and win
ironically enough, it means "walled enclosure" if you trace it back a few steps.
We like the security of a controlled environment.
Ofcourse i'm speaking generally here, but i cannot be arsed describing every goddamned personality in the world
closing words:
Fuck anarchism, and people who think its good
After reading your posts here, I think I'm safe to say that I like the way your mind works. Of course I don't agree with every single thing you say, but I like how you have the ability to think the way you do. And I think you're definitely right about the security thing. We feel safe when we have leaders.
Lussi
Member
100% agree !
And about anarchy : I think our leaders are anachist. I mean they can do whatever they want, they don't care about the law (they are all corrupt or have been). They are the people that are less limited by the system.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
The only kind of freedom that I can get behind is emotional/mental freedom. The fact that if you can control you inner states, and therefore be able to choose how you feel in reaction to a certain event gives you the freedom of mind. Letting outside stimulus control how you feel is like being a slave. A phobia is a good example of being a slave to outside stimulus. People become slaves to their phobias and in turn it tends to interfere with their lives to the extent that they actively avoid that phobia.
Dred
His Dudeness
So....slavery is okay??
There's quite a distinction between personal freedom and anarchism....and problems only arise when one person (or group of people) impose upon another persons/groups freedoms.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
If you work for someone else who is making more money then you then you are a slave. You may not be owned by them, but in many cases, it is as if you were. And then there is the government who passes laws that prevent you from being free. There is the old adage that in order to be secure you have to give up freedoms. Well we live in a day and age where people are stupid enough to let the governments take their freedoms at will and impose legislation taking away our freedom. It is not a matter if slavery is ok or not, because it happens all the time anyways, and I don't make a moral judgment about something like that. Simply, slavery really is a mindset, and so is being free. If you can convince a slave they are free, then you have won as a slave master.
Dred
His Dudeness
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
So what is a slave then. As far as I know, there are countless definitions of slavery depending on the period and interaction of slaves. Such slavery in the one form exists as forced labor, and in the other sense of economic slavery through debt.
No.
Undefined
Indefinite Entity
I refuse to participate it this thread any longer, unless we all get microphones and start recoridng and uploading our thoughts/opinions. 2 reasons for this: first I don't spend a hour writing up only 1/4 of my views on a certain post, and secondly I want some of you to hear your own 'philosophies' spoken aloud.
Dred
His Dudeness
Living above your means through the spending of someone elses money (via credit) and having to work for some faceless corporation to pay it off is not the same as indentured servitude.
That would be really weird tho. Because it's not like we would be having actual conversations through these recordings...and when you type out this shit, it comes easier. At least it does for me, if I were to speak these thoughts, I'd like to have the person in front of me with whom I'm debating.
Also, when I reply to your posts, I break them up in sections and re-read what you had written before I reply to that particular statement. So that wouldn't really be possible if we were to record ourselves speaking...there would be like big gaps of space between our thoughts.
KillerGon
UM Troll member
ITT: Self absorbed witty people, who think they can change the world with their egocentic - maniac - depressive - fascist thoughs, dellusionally calling it "philosophy".
And yes, I put "people" just to avoid being banned.
And yes, I put "people" just to avoid being banned.
Undefined
Indefinite Entity
I do the same and I already thought of that. Voice recording would be less concise but you could go back and address something if you missed it, and also we all have brains in which we can store the points another person has made which we want to add our opinion to (if not you could even make a little note of it in a notepad document). I think it'd be more interesting and also help the discussions along. It's really easy to write the thoughts in your head, I want to hear some of you say it aloud
OvSeth
Member
Hey Mystique (forgot your name
I'll start Euthyphro tomorrow
Sorry, I never really gave my name. It's Twisha (pronounced twee-sha). So yeah, Socrates really tries to get to the universal definition for a lot of things. Like in Meno, he was seeking the true essence of what it is to be a virtue, and in the Euthyphro, you'll see he does the same thing for piety. But I've noticed that he never really ever gets to the answer he's looking for. which makes me wonder if there is any true knowledge out there.
And what did you think about the original question that Meno asked? He asked if virtue can be taught, or is it innate within man. Then Socrates answers that all knowledge is recollection....I'm not so sure what to think about this yet...like yeah, I understand how he can think that we just recall knowledge when it's placed in front of us, cuz it's like our mind just has to reason to find it-- so in that sense, we've always had it with us. But then there is certain knowledge that doesn't work like that. Like knowledge of a spaceship landing on the moon or something...that was never within us from the beginning, it is more like a fact that we have been taught and then we retain.
Altitudes
Stay Frosty
You are probably sleeping now but whatever, haha...
In the case of "Meno", virtue is ascribed many attributes and characteristics that seemingly point to a central idea, which is that of justness and all that is good. However, because what is "good" and "evil" is subjective from one person to the next (like how Socrates contradicts Meno in his example that wealth and power is a virtue), virtue cannot be clearly defined and is, in itself, subjective. Also, the waters begin to muddy when we start to assume that all these examples of virtue must refer to one thing. Virtue is not simply one single thing (can't think of a better word), yet many. As Socrates demonstrates there are many colours and shapes, not a single colour or shape.
The problem to me that I see is that Meno is going in circles using various virtues to describe/define virtue itself. Also, if you google "Meno's Paradox", you will see that the problem at large is that Meno does not know what he is searching for, making inquiry impossible. What he thinks he knows later becomes ambiguous.
As in the scene with the slave, we see that one can come to a conclusion without previously knowing an answer. Socrates proposes that if virtue is a type of knowledge, then it can be taught. Of course, there is no definitive solution to this (unless I missed something). I suppose the inferred conclusion here is that virtue is not taught, yet transcended. A different breed of knowledge, like wisdom. Virtue is an abstract understanding that is hard to pinpoint.
To finally answer your question whether or not there is "true" knowledge, I believe that we are able to find definite answers, in regards to facts, math, science, etc. However, you can't clearly define what "beauty" is for instance. There is a distinction between an abstract idea and one that is more concrete, like physics.
Yeah, quite a way of putting it, eh?
I believe Socrates's logic still applies because through trial-and-error we learn from our mistakes and correct them in better efforts to accomplish a given problem.
Sorry if my reply is convoluted =P
Mystique1721 said:
In the case of "Meno", virtue is ascribed many attributes and characteristics that seemingly point to a central idea, which is that of justness and all that is good. However, because what is "good" and "evil" is subjective from one person to the next (like how Socrates contradicts Meno in his example that wealth and power is a virtue), virtue cannot be clearly defined and is, in itself, subjective. Also, the waters begin to muddy when we start to assume that all these examples of virtue must refer to one thing. Virtue is not simply one single thing (can't think of a better word), yet many. As Socrates demonstrates there are many colours and shapes, not a single colour or shape.
The problem to me that I see is that Meno is going in circles using various virtues to describe/define virtue itself. Also, if you google "Meno's Paradox", you will see that the problem at large is that Meno does not know what he is searching for, making inquiry impossible. What he thinks he knows later becomes ambiguous.
As in the scene with the slave, we see that one can come to a conclusion without previously knowing an answer. Socrates proposes that if virtue is a type of knowledge, then it can be taught. Of course, there is no definitive solution to this (unless I missed something). I suppose the inferred conclusion here is that virtue is not taught, yet transcended. A different breed of knowledge, like wisdom. Virtue is an abstract understanding that is hard to pinpoint.
To finally answer your question whether or not there is "true" knowledge, I believe that we are able to find definite answers, in regards to facts, math, science, etc. However, you can't clearly define what "beauty" is for instance. There is a distinction between an abstract idea and one that is more concrete, like physics.
Mystique1721 said:
Yeah, quite a way of putting it, eh?
I believe Socrates's logic still applies because through trial-and-error we learn from our mistakes and correct them in better efforts to accomplish a given problem. Sorry if my reply is convoluted =P
Mmmm..
I have a few theories.
of stuff like.. parallel universes.. space. time etc..
but yeah
Not sure if I should voice them. type even.
I have a few theories.
of stuff like.. parallel universes.. space. time etc..
but yeah
Not sure if I should voice them. type even.
Altitudes
Stay Frosty
I suggest formulating coherent thoughts before you do that. What the fuck would you know about parallel universes?
By all means, blow me away with your insight.
