Philosophy- Discuss Here

[ZaraHeroin]

Meh.. it's probably all wrong anyway
I'm not the brightest spark but I try..

 

[Knarfi]

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.

Agreed, parallel universes arent just theoretic philosophic ideas, its being worked on scientificly etc

Anyone ever got into reading about black holes?

 

[ZaraHeroin]

^ aye me.

 

[Muffin]

Agreed, parallel universes arent just theoretic philosophic ideas, its being worked on scientificly etc

Anyone ever got into reading about black holes?

I think ive read STephen Hawkings book like, 3 or 4 times

So yeah, ive read about it quite a lot..

 

[Lussi]

@ Mystique : for the univ I have to read a lot of contemporary books and writers such as : Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Gombrich, Levi-Strauss, Deleuze, Winnicott, Mucchielli, Eco, Barthes and so on ..... I never read any Camus, but that sounds really interesting...

Have you ever read "the name of the rose"?

 

[ZaraHeroin]

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.

Well would you prefer you live somehwere , with people running around shooting people (more than at the moment ) & feeling threatened in every hour of the day?

Countries need some sort of structure to how they run. instead of having none at all, even if they structure isn't that good.


Yeah there isn't much freedom.. But people who do have freedom (poorer countries I suppose) look at the state they're in.


And anyway they do it for our safety.. Like locking us up when we've had to much to drink for the night
or making drugs illegal cause they can harm you.

(I know this post is alittle late. and blah blah blah.. but I saw it and thought I'd saysoomething).

 

[OvSeth]

Well would you prefer you live somehwere , with people running around shooting people (more than at the moment ) & feeling threatened in every hour of the day?

Countries need some sort of structure to how they run. instead of having none at all, even if they structure isn't that good.


Yeah there isn't much freedom.. But people who do have freedom (poorer countries I suppose) look at the state they're in.


And anyway they do it for our safety.. Like locking us up when we've had to much to drink for the night
or making drugs illegal cause they can harm you.

(I know this post is alittle late. and blah blah blah.. but I saw it and thought I'd saysoomething).

I agree. The government has some bad sides, and there are crooked people everywhere in this world, but this is one of their better sides.

 

[ZaraHeroin]

I agree. The government has some bad sides, and there are crooked people everywhere in this world, but this is one of their better sides.

exactlyy.
thank you^^
Ihave smart moments

 

[Mystique1721]

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.

Actually, these forms such as "virtue" and "beauty" and "justice" are all objective according to Socrates. I know because of their discussion it leads us to think it is subjective, but really Meno is just giving false opinions of the definition that Socrates is asking for. When Socrates asks him what is virtue, Meno replies virtue is different for every person, like a man should be able to manage his affairs and a woman should manage the home. Socrates points out that although these can be traits of virtue, these are not virtue itself.

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.

I think the word you're looking for is unity. The whole point of the dialogue is to come to the essence of the nature of virtue. So yes, it is possible that virtue can be one single thing, but this is what is so hard (and it seems impossible) to get to.

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.

Yup, that's why Socrates is giving him a hard time.

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.

hmm...that's an interesting take on it, that it's transcended into the mind...

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.

Could you be more specific here? Like how would trial and error work in having innate knowledge?

@ Mystique : for the univ I have to read a lot of contemporary books and writers such as : Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Gombrich, Levi-Strauss, Deleuze, Winnicott, Mucchielli, Eco, Barthes and so on ..... I never read any Camus, but that sounds really interesting...

Have you ever read "the name of the rose"?

Hmm no, I can't say that I've read any of those philosophers, I guess I'm more interested in the older ones. Are these writers like the Avant-garde type? Btw, what country are you in? For some reason, I thought you were from France, but if that was/is the case, I'm surprised you havn't heard about Camus!

 

[Altitudes]

Could you be more specific here? Like how would trial and error work in having innate knowledge?

I was going to write a very insightful post describing how it is impossible to have innate knowledge, but then I looked up "innatism" and now I am unsure Like in the example you gave of our knowledge of spacecraft landings; what I was trying to say is that without testing millions of scenarios and possibilities, we would never learn from our mistakes or have a perception of what "works". We do not have this knowledge of physics instilled in our head. Therefore this knowledge is not innate.

When we are born, our brains are essentially a blank slate. We learn from experience and what is taught to us, and we are, essentially, indoctrinated. However, I DO believe humans have a higher ability of understanding than say a chimp, for example. That is not to say or be confused with the notion that humans are born with innate knowledge, therefore smarter than a chimp.

So no, I'm sure any rationalist would refute the concept of innatism.

 

[Mystique1721]

I was going to write a very insightful post describing how it is impossible to have innate knowledge, but then I looked up "innatism" and now I am unsure Like in the example you gave of our knowledge of spacecraft landings; what I was trying to say is that without testing millions of scenarios and possibilities, we would never learn from our mistakes or have a perception of what "works". We do not have this knowledge of physics instilled in our head. Therefore this knowledge is not innate.

When we are born, our brains are essentially a blank slate. We learn from experience and what is taught to us, and we are, essentially, indoctrinated. However, I DO believe humans have a higher ability of understanding than say a chimp, for example. That is not to say or be confused with the notion that humans are born with innate knowledge, therefore smarter than a chimp.

So no, I'm sure any rationalist would refute the concept of innatism.

yeah, I see what you are saying. we actually had this discussion in my class on Thursday. But then the topic of brain vs. soul came up. Our brains have the ability to absorb facts and rationalize so we reach certain knowledge. But then it was brought up that our souls are the ones that have this innate wisdom to begin with. And the soul only uses the body as a vessel anyway. Without a soul, we would not be alive. sorry, I think I'm kind of going off on a tangent here, but basically our souls are what have this knowledge that we must recollect when we "learn" something. Our brains are just utilized to rationalize this knowledge that we always had. This is according to Socrates anyway.

Though, I definitely see where you're coming from. I thought the same before, but I'm a bit conflicted right now (given that the soul even exists).

 

[Altitudes]

lol@souls

I understand what you mean by soul, but thanks to spiritual people it is misinterpreted and put out of context. The word you are looking for is conscience. I am no Neuroscientist but do know that all our actions, thoughts, and feelings are derived from our brain and conscience. "Soul" is non-existent, and if you ask me, a superstition.

What you described seems to me as natural instincts and universal emotions. We are able to feel these emotions not through soul or innate "knowledge" (it seems like this word is out of place, I don't classify instinctual feelings as knowledge), but because of our natural cognitive predisposition, which no one can really explain

 

[Undefined]

lol @ both of you. I'm sorry, I have things I'd like to say but, it's just not worth typing out everything... if this was an audio thread or something then I'd think about making a reply.

 

[Altitudes]

Do so or shut the fuck up.

 

[Undefined]

Do so or shut the fuck up.

You think you're so smart don't you. You're talking out your ass. Anyone can read a fucking book and spew the knowledge out like it's nothing. Try living in the real world a while and combining your ideas with that... you know... having an open mind and some common sense really goes a long way, a lot more than studying will take you (or rather, studying concepts put forth by others (e.g. philosophy) is rather pointless if you lack the aforementioned qualities).

 

[Altitudes]

You think you're so smart don't you.

That's ironic. I thought you were trying to act like a smart ass a post ago?

You're talking out your ass. Anyone can read a fucking book and spew the knowledge out like it's nothing. Try living in the real world a while and combining your ideas with that... you know... having an open mind and some common sense really goes a long way, a lot more than studying will take you (or rather, studying concepts put forth by others (e.g. philosophy) is rather pointless if you lack the aforementioned qualities).

You came in here, acting like the shit, stated your shitty opinion about how this thread sucks, stated how you could post but wouldn't, and you have not had a positive contribution to this thread. You don't have to view EVERY single thread, you know?

What does having common sense have to do with the argument? You just created a new argument that has nothing to do with anything. This isn't the "How to live in the Real World 101" thread.

I'm just saying, don't say "lol @ both of you", imply you have something important to say but claim it isn't worthwhile, YET STILL HIT THE SUBMIT POST BUTTON.

EDIT: Troll

 

[Mystique1721]

lol@souls

I understand what you mean by soul, but thanks to spiritual people it is misinterpreted and put out of context. The word you are looking for is conscience. I am no Neuroscientist but do know that all our actions, thoughts, and feelings are derived from our brain and conscience. "Soul" is non-existent, and if you ask me, a superstition.

What you described seems to me as natural instincts and universal emotions. We are able to feel these emotions not through soul or innate "knowledge" (it seems like this word is out of place, I don't classify instinctual feelings as knowledge), but because of our natural cognitive predisposition, which no one can really explain

haha, yeah I know, the concept of what a "soul" is today is totally skewed. You are right about the conscious thing, I guess that was more of what Socrates meant back then. But I didn't mean to imply emotion. I did mean knowledge, at least this is what Socrates meant, I'm just writing from his perspective right now since we were talking about what he meant to find in his definitions and stuff. He actually meant wisdom comes from the soul and that's what makes it innate because a soul never dies. If you read Phaedo, he gives a long discussion about how even though the body dies, the soul never will. The soul goes to the underworld and is then re-used for another body later on; and so it reuses all the basic knowledge all over again. I know it's kinda a silly story in our eyes, but that's what they believed back then.

lol @ both of you. I'm sorry, I have things I'd like to say but, it's just not worth typing out everything... if this was an audio thread or something then I'd think about making a reply.

that was such a pointless post. why even bother writing that shit.

You think you're so smart don't you. You're talking out your ass. Anyone can read a fucking book and spew the knowledge out like it's nothing. Try living in the real world a while and combining your ideas with that... you know... having an open mind and some common sense really goes a long way, a lot more than studying will take you (or rather, studying concepts put forth by others (e.g. philosophy) is rather pointless if you lack the aforementioned qualities).

All this talk about "living in the real world" is getting kinda old, don't ya think? "Living in the real world" doesn't necessarily mean that life is full of drugs and violence, people also lead descent lives and make something out of themselves through education. You don't have to be street smart in order to live life. Honestly, take your own advice here and open up your world-view a bit.

 

[Undefined]

You came in here, acting like the shit, stated your shitty opinion about how this thread sucks, stated how you could post but wouldn't

Seriously. Where did I say it sucked? All I said was I wanted to join in but I can't be bothered to write those long, essay style posts I was doing before (especially when more than HALF of my VALID points are fucking ignored anyways, totally FAIL way to hold a conversation). I said "lol@both of you" because you guys were just writing so much back and forth.

and you have not had a positive contribution to this thread.

What does having common sense have to do with the argument? You just created a new argument that has nothing to do with anything. This isn't the "How to live in the Real World 101" thread.

Half-true, half not.. but for the sake of argument it's not worth getting into because, well.. you guys are so far up your fucking ass it's unreal. You wouldn't understand me anyways. You're both smart, have an understanding of many concepts yet you somehow CANNOT PRACTICALLY APPLY THEM. Seriously. You and your "OMG FUCK RELIGIONS AND PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM" and her "ALL HOMELESS AND DRUG ADDICTED PEOPLE ARE FUCKING WASTE OF SOCIETY AND ARE BETTER OFF DEAD"... like what the fuck is that kind of bullshit You know those philosophers you admire so much would bitchslap you across the mouth and laugh in your face if you told them some shit like that.

I'm just saying, don't say "lol @ both of you", imply you have something important to say but claim it isn't worthwhile, YET STILL HIT THE SUBMIT POST BUTTON.

I did have some things I wanted to say (not just regarding the current discussion either, I lurk this thread everyday pretty much), I enjoy this thread, I just hate making two hour posts, then have half of it ignored because it seems some people don't know how to address the things I say that they can't disprove or come up with a good counterpoint against.

haha, yeah I know, the concept of what a "soul" is today is totally skewed. You are right about the conscious thing, I guess that was more of what Socrates meant back then. But I didn't mean to imply emotion. I did mean knowledge, at least this is what Socrates meant, I'm just writing from his perspective right now since we were talking about what he meant to find in his definitions and stuff. He actually meant wisdom comes from the soul and that's what makes it innate because a soul never dies. If you read Phaedo, he gives a long discussion about how even though the body dies, the soul never will. The soul goes to the underworld and is then re-used for another body later on; and so it reuses all the basic knowledge all over again. I know it's kinda a silly story in our eyes, but that's what they believed back then.

that was such a pointless post. why even bother writing that shit.

.

You think you guys are the first people to read this shit and then debate/discuss it back and forth? Spewing points directly from a book back and forth is something I personally think is boring to do and proves you're a good mimic and nothing else (well, except for maybe you like to make people think you are pretentious).

All this talk about "living in the real world" is getting kinda old, don't ya think? "Living in the real world" doesn't necessarily mean that life is full of drugs and violence, people also lead descent lives and make something out of themselves through education. You don't have to be street smart in order to live life. Honestly, take your own advice here and open up your world-view a bit.

Bingo. See this is the problem with you people, your head is so far up your own ass you don't see ANYTHING, you go off on your own fucking tangents not even knowing what the fuck is going on in REALITY. Where did I say ANY of that shit. What the fuck are you even talking about?

And I'll re-quote you because I was so amazed by your raving...

"Living in the real world" doesn't necessarily mean that life is full of drugs and violence, people also lead descent lives and make something out of themselves through education.

Exactly. So, why the fuck would you think that is what I meant when I said 'the real world'. If you know that, why say it? I'll you why, it was because you are incapable of seeing things from other people's point of view (as demonstrated from our earlier interactions in this thread) and instead of even attempting that you had to resort to an out of context pseudo-ad hominem attack. You took shit that wasn't mentioned in this conversation ANYWHERE, especially not in any of MY posts, and used it in some senseless rant that had nothing to do with what I said. It's actually kind of funny to watch, because you follow a predictable pattern. I'd actually tell you what kind of post you're going to make next, but then you would probably not do it so I will just watch for my own amusement.

Fuck Long post, you bastards...

 

[Lussi]

Hmm no, I can't say that I've read any of those philosophers, I guess I'm more interested in the older ones. Are these writers like the Avant-garde type? Btw, what country are you in? For some reason, I thought you were from France, but if that was/is the case, I'm surprised you havn't heard about Camus!

Yes I am. I don't know if these are avant-garde. But yes I always heard about Camus, of course, but never read any book. I will soon .

 

[Mystique1721]

Heartless, stop crying just because we don't agree on every fucking thing with you. There are different views in this world, and just cuz you don't like 'em doesn't mean they're "wrong."

Don't come in here just for the sake of name-calling.

You know those philosophers you admire so much would bitchslap you across the mouth and laugh in your face if you told them some shit like that.

who the fuck cares. I take what I can from them and admire them for their words/thoughts even if we don't see eye to eye.