Philosophy- Discuss Here

[Mystique1721]

LOL HI MAYBE WE AREN'T REAL AND YOU ARE ALL IN MY DREAMS

then you wouldn't have any dreams

 

[dawnghost]

@dawnghost

Alright, I'm back, I'm very busy working on my dissertation, and I don't have much time. So I'm gonna have to use a very qualitative approach to this discussion, meaning I'll tackle the issues I think most of the content can come out of, and sadly ignore other points, even though they might be important.

For example, I'll completely ignore some issues that I find self-defeating in the pure agnostic mindset:

And physically, reason works for us. Not as an illusion, but as logic. But metaphysically, there is no such thing as existence and there is no point to reason when there is nothing to gain. So when you ask if I'm trying to attain an objective truth, the answer is no I'm not.

Even though I know knowledge "works" in our physical world (like you said the engineering of a plane), it doesn't work spiritually or above the physical aspects.

From the above, I'll just agree that at least logic exists and that reason works physically speaking. While I don't agree that there is no existence in the metaphysical sphere (since this basically assumes that what we can't know cannot exist, which is silly), I'll leave this card out of the deck.

I'd like to make clear, though, that you are concluding, from the premise, and not from evidence or even logic, that there is no existence outside of the physically observable universe.

Or yet, I would say, "the truth is, there is no truth." And YES this is a paradox, by definition, but within the context of my philosophy.

You say, "And there's no paradox, it's clear that you want to argue against reason by using reason." Check again, a paradox can be a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

I'm sorry, but there's a misunderstanding of definitions here. First of all, it seems the definition you're using comes straight from dictionary.com. I'm not trying to undermine your credibility here, just pointing out that a dictionary will also regard paradoxes according to semantic or poetic value. What we will have to deal here is with logical paradoxes, that is, self-defeating arguments.

If I say "she couldn't stand the overwhelming screams of silence", that is a paradox, but we can understand the meaning of the sentence. That's because we are using it poetically. In this case, we are presented something that seems absurd, but which isn't.

If I say, though "this sentence is false", then it will only be true if it is false. And if it is false, it will be true. Therefore, it is a paradox, and thus a self-defeating argument, a logically invalid argument.

So if you say "the truth is: there is no truth", you build a self-defeating argument, because if there is no truth, you can't say anything is true, including your argument. And since I suppose you believe, at least, in logic, I hope we can conclude that, at least for the sake of the argument, that your assertion was invalid and the truth does seem to exist. If it doesn't, well, then even logic is useless.

If we can't agree on that, I'm sadly giving up on arguing, because it will be an useless experience. You question me on this:

I wouldn't call philosophy an empty exercise in rhetoric. I feel that it satisfies our minds. But in the long run, of course we don't get anywhere. What are your thoughts on this? Where exactly do you feel we go with the discussion of philosophy. What are people searching for in spirituality?

For me, philosophy doesn't exist just to satisfy our minds. Satisfy our minds with what? More illusion? Is philosophy just a way of passing time? It doesn't make sense. I understand some contemporary schools of thought have thrown philosophy into a blur of confusion, but "philosophy" actually means "love of knowledge". Somehow, nowadays knowledge is like the untouchable muse, and a sort of platonic love for it seems to be the popular trend among philosophy thinkers. It's a kind of agnosticism, though, that can only work in the extremely abstract level, since no one applies it in practical terms. Evidence of this is that you're actually reading what I'm writing and thinking of a response right now, and not just assuming no truth exists anyway so why waste the time?

My view is that there IS an objective reality, even if our perceptions, cognitive resources and senses may fail to apprehend it. When doing scientific research, I will go the positivist route mostly, but as far as the metaphysical is concerned, I consider myself a critical realist.

Spirituality is another matter entirely, and I think a discussion of motivations behind it is outside the scope of this discussion, if we want to focus.

I'll now quote what is, to me, the most significant part of your post, and the basis for my question.

The universe has not come to be by a cause...and I do not believe there to be a cause FOR it.

My question:

Has the universe come to be? I mean, was there a beginning for it? Or is the universe eternal?

Religions are weak because they are man-made concepts used to fill some kind of a void that the human "soul" feels. I don't know why and from where this void came to be in the first place. Here I will admit that those who do not feel this void are the stronger of mankind. And maybe some do feel it, but it's not a negative thing as society makes it to be.

Do you feel it?

Yes, I would disagree with you even if you came up with a proof for god's existence. Because that is a metaphysical matter, and I've said, I don't believe in anything when it comes to that.

I'd, just by reading this, have given up on this discussion entirely, simply because it's an useless one if you are not prepared to change the way you view things. By definition, the metaphysical is untouchable, so even if a logical argument is provided, and it is sound, it's abandoned in favor of the premise.

If the premise is all that matters, then it's useless to argue logic or evidence.

Even so, I am curious to read your presentation of the case for your worldview. If that fails, well, then it's over I guess. There's nothing left, since you won't abandon your premise.

My argument being a priori is correct. It is not linked to experience, it is above that. And I think what you are confusing me arguing for is the a posteriori, although you know my argument is a priori. So just know that I am arguing for the a priori as well. Knowledge works for the a posteriori, not for the a priori.

It is above that by definition. But if there's no logic supporting it, well, I regard it as blind faith and nothing else.

If by positive case you mean that I should construct a proof, well I've never even thought of doing that...and I don't think it fits in the context of my philosophy since I am arguing that overall, there is no such thing as knowledge nor existence.

Again, I'm going to ask you questions. If you believe nothing exists just because you chose to adopt that worldview regardless of logic or evidence supporting it, I'll consider it an example of blind faith and be done with it.



Also, some other people have asked questions. Spirit Crusher has asked me a question regarding secular humanism. I'll skip that because I have no time, sorry.

And Gonzo couldn't possibly hope that someone who is religious would respond to a post which calls people "religionfags" before even posting the question. I mean, really. You know I love you dude, and maybe when I am in Argentina again I can answer that question in person.

And while not providing a question per se, I noticed Muffin's post (part of it) concerning the impossibility of infinity. That is a very interesting subject, and I've been reading about it lately!

 

[Silver Incubus]

I keep seeing the term metaphysical being thrown around here. How do you even prove there is a metaphysical, when all we know is physical. Anything that we know about is based from physical evidence. Your thoughts are created by your brain, and there is no soul or spiritual entity residing within us. That is just silly religions jargon that refers to afterlives etc.

 

[Undefined]

Alright, I'm back, I'm very busy working on my dissertation, and I don't have much time. So I'm gonna have to use a very qualitative approach to this discussion, meaning I'll tackle the issues I think most of the content can come out of, and sadly ignore other points, even though they might be important.

For example, I'll completely ignore some issues that I find self-defeating in the pure agnostic mindset:





From the above, I'll just agree that at least logic exists and that reason works physically speaking. While I don't agree that there is no existence in the metaphysical sphere (since this basically assumes that what we can't know cannot exist, which is silly), I'll leave this card out of the deck.

I'd like to make clear, though, that you are concluding, from the premise, and not from evidence or even logic, that there is no existence outside of the physically observable universe.





I'm sorry, but there's a misunderstanding of definitions here. First of all, it seems the definition you're using comes straight from dictionary.com. I'm not trying to undermine your credibility here, just pointing out that a dictionary will also regard paradoxes according to semantic or poetic value. What we will have to deal here is with logical paradoxes, that is, self-defeating arguments.

If I say "she couldn't stand the overwhelming screams of silence", that is a paradox, but we can understand the meaning of the sentence. That's because we are using it poetically. In this case, we are presented something that seems absurd, but which isn't.

If I say, though "this sentence is false", then it will only be true if it is false. And if it is false, it will be true. Therefore, it is a paradox, and thus a self-defeating argument, a logically invalid argument.

So if you say "the truth is: there is no truth", you build a self-defeating argument, because if there is no truth, you can't say anything is true, including your argument. And since I suppose you believe, at least, in logic, I hope we can conclude that, at least for the sake of the argument, that your assertion was invalid and the truth does seem to exist. If it doesn't, well, then even logic is useless.

If we can't agree on that, I'm sadly giving up on arguing, because it will be an useless experience. You question me on this:



For me, philosophy doesn't exist just to satisfy our minds. Satisfy our minds with what? More illusion? Is philosophy just a way of passing time? It doesn't make sense. I understand some contemporary schools of thought have thrown philosophy into a blur of confusion, but "philosophy" actually means "love of knowledge". Somehow, nowadays knowledge is like the untouchable muse, and a sort of platonic love for it seems to be the popular trend among philosophy thinkers. It's a kind of agnosticism, though, that can only work in the extremely abstract level, since no one applies it in practical terms. Evidence of this is that you're actually reading what I'm writing and thinking of a response right now, and not just assuming no truth exists anyway so why waste the time?

My view is that there IS an objective reality, even if our perceptions, cognitive resources and senses may fail to apprehend it. When doing scientific research, I will go the positivist route mostly, but as far as the metaphysical is concerned, I consider myself a critical realist.

Spirituality is another matter entirely, and I think a discussion of motivations behind it is outside the scope of this discussion, if we want to focus.

I'll now quote what is, to me, the most significant part of your post, and the basis for my question.



My question:

Has the universe come to be? I mean, was there a beginning for it? Or is the universe eternal?



Do you feel it?



I'd, just by reading this, have given up on this discussion entirely, simply because it's an useless one if you are not prepared to change the way you view things. By definition, the metaphysical is untouchable, so even if a logical argument is provided, and it is sound, it's abandoned in favor of the premise.

If the premise is all that matters, then it's useless to argue logic or evidence.

Even so, I am curious to read your presentation of the case for your worldview. If that fails, well, then it's over I guess. There's nothing left, since you won't abandon your premise.



It is above that by definition. But if there's no logic supporting it, well, I regard it as blind faith and nothing else.



Again, I'm going to ask you questions. If you believe nothing exists just because you chose to adopt that worldview regardless of logic or evidence supporting it, I'll consider it an example of blind faith and be done with it.



Also, some other people have asked questions. Spirit Crusher has asked me a question regarding secular humanism. I'll skip that because I have no time, sorry.

And Gonzo couldn't possibly hope that someone who is religious would respond to a post which calls people "religionfags" before even posting the question. I mean, really. You know I love you dude, and maybe when I am in Argentina again I can answer that question face to face.

And while not providing a question per se, I noticed Muffin's post (part of it) concerning the impossibility of infinity. That is a very interesting subject, and I've been reading about it lately!

 

[Altitudes]

Perfect!

 

[KillerGon]

And Gonzo couldn't possibly hope that someone who is religious would respond to a post which calls people "religionfags" before even posting the question. I mean, really. You know I love you dude, and maybe when I am in Argentina again I can answer that question in person.

Dude, take it easy... I call everyone a fag

Besides, all I wanted was a reaction from a believer. It will be a cool debate of ideas!

 

[Altitudes]

Isn't dawnghost a Christian? Or at least believes in the existence of Jesus? Not trying to single you out, I'm just trying to remember correctly.

 

[Earth Breather]

jesus wasn't real.
spanish wasn't even invented back then.

 

[The Emptier]

i believe in jesus, i dont really care if people think thats stupid or something, and i dont think everything is blasphemy, obviously so. but it's just weird to me why people can't let their guard down and just say...ok maybe theres some shit up there.

 

[Altitudes]

Maybe because it is irrational? I believe in a dancing leprechaun kingdom after I die. If many people started to believe this too it would seem less irrational. Oh yeah, you can't prove me wrong either

 

[The Emptier]

well my view of god is that whether or not you believe in him you still go up to either purgatory or heaven (in my view there is no hell and the devil is just a way to try and stop sinning, much like santa)

 

[Altitudes]

maybe theres some shit up there.

you still go up to either purgatory or heaven

So you are saying it has a location? "Above" us. I'm certain that "above" and "up" are symbolic to what is beyond our little world. Also, the bible has stated that the sky is made of water, that the earth has corners, and that the earth is balanced on pillars. I'll let you decided if you still believe all this. It is written right in there.

well my view of god is that whether or not you believe in him you still go up to either purgatory or heaven (in my view there is no hell and the devil is just a way to try and stop sinning, much like santa)

OH LAWD! Santa dude? I nearly shat my pants yet erked at the same time. If you are a true Christain and believe the bible, you wouldn't have to come up with your own definition of god, heaven and hell, and how the world works. Also, you don't go anywhere, up or down, and you have seemed to forget the fact that when you die you are no longer conscious, meaning no memories and you are unable to actively reflect in "purgatory", forever suffer consciously in "hell", or enjoy the rewards of your beliefs/faith in "heaven". This whole notion/concept is so outlandish I often wonder myself if there is a god

I hope I'm not getting trolled

 

[The Emptier]

of course im saying up as a symbolic thing. thats just what im used to. well idk i believe in that god didnt just create the world and there is evolution but that he is a superior being etc.

 

[Undefined]

jesus wasn't real.
spanish wasn't even invented back then.

I know you're kidding but... Um, well I am pretty sure that the words 'God' and 'Jesus' aren't the original names for these 'deities'. They are translated terms (lol, might not even be translated ffs, just a NEW word they gave to represent them instead of using the old/foreign terms) adopted by certain cultures. The Jews have a different word for God, a lot of denominations do. It's all meant to be the same person/being though.

Maybe because it is irrational? I believe in a dancing leprechaun kingdom after I die. If many people started to believe this too it would seem less irrational. Oh yeah, you can't prove me wrong either

This picture is meant for you and the religious people. I went to a Catholic school and even they tell you NOT to take the bible literally. P.S. I do believe in God, and Jesus, but in my own way. I practice no religion nor do I embrace any particular denomination. That is what makes everything fucked imo. I notice the people who rely heavily on religion (for the wrong reasons) are the dumbest cunts who are hypocrites themselves. They condemn others yet they break there own fucking rules OR WORSE all the time.

So you are saying it has a location? "Above" us. I'm certain that "above" and "up" are symbolic to what is beyond our little world. Also, the bible has stated that the sky is made of water, that the earth has corners, and that the earth is balanced on pillars. I'll let you decided if you still believe all this. It is written right in there.

THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN:

His name is Flapjack the Omnipotent.

 

[Altitudes]

of course im saying up as a symbolic thing.

... meaning it is not real.

thats just what im used to.

The brain can be manipulated in many ways, through repetition, fear, guilt, etc.

well idk i believe in that god didnt just create the world and there is evolution but that he is a superior being etc.

Who created the world then if you don't believe in GOD, your creator!11! At least you don't seem to confuse creationism with evolution, or maybe you just don't know

Do believe GOD is all knowing and a conscious being?

I went to a Catholic school and even they tell you NOT to take the bible literally.

Me too, lol.

THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN:

His name is Flapjack the Omnipotent.

AT LEAST YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING!!11

 

[Mystique1721]

Alright, I'm back, I'm very busy working on my dissertation, and I don't have much time. So I'm gonna have to use a very qualitative approach to this discussion, meaning I'll tackle the issues I think most of the content can come out of, and sadly ignore other points, even though they might be important.

what's your dissertation on? And btw, how many logic courses have you taken?

From the above, I'll just agree that at least logic exists and that reason works physically speaking. While I don't agree that there is no existence in the metaphysical sphere (since this basically assumes that what we can't know cannot exist, which is silly), I'll leave this card out of the deck.

So instead, your view seems to be "what we can't know, can exist"? If not, how would you state it otherwise? Because the definition of "exist" isn't only meaning "alive." It goes beyond that, and that's why I think that word shouldn't be applied for metaphysical matters. Such as "god exists."

I'd like to make clear, though, that you are concluding, from the premise, and not from evidence or even logic, that there is no existence outside of the physically observable universe.

I already said that this type of argument cannot use physical logic to support it. Let me know if you can make a logical proof for the existence of god. So, yes, it is most obviously opinion, but I wouldn't call it "blind faith" as faith refers to something that you DO believe in. In this case, there's no belief. But how else would I let my opinions be known if not through these words?

I'm sorry, but there's a misunderstanding of definitions here. First of all, it seems the definition you're using comes straight from dictionary.com. I'm not trying to undermine your credibility here, just pointing out that a dictionary will also regard paradoxes according to semantic or poetic value. What we will have to deal here is with logical paradoxes, that is, self-defeating arguments.

lol yeah, it does come from there. It was the closest reference I had and I wanted something to back me up, instead of having just "made up" the definition.

So if you say "the truth is: there is no truth", you build a self-defeating argument, because if there is no truth, you can't say anything is true, including your argument. And since I suppose you believe, at least, in logic, I hope we can conclude that, at least for the sake of the argument, that your assertion was invalid and the truth does seem to exist. If it doesn't, well, then even logic is useless.

Maybe I'm forgetting, but if an argument is invalid, does it automatically make that argument false? Because even if it is false, that does not necessarily mean that truth does exist. In order for this to be true (and if we're playing by the rules of logic) then we have to construct a proof to show that truth exists. And in my opinion, proofs like this are impossible, because they are outside the limits of our knowledge. (And hence why I can't logically prove my own argument.

If we can't agree on that, I'm sadly giving up on arguing, because it will be an useless experience.

I'm sorry because it does seem we don't agree on the fact that logical proofs can prove metaphysical matters. It seems that you believe they can, whereas I don't. And I base this on, as Silver Incubus implied, the fact that we cannot know what is out there, and above us, or in other words, the metaphysical. This is also why I argue that there is no true knowledge, because we don't know to begin with.

My view is that there IS an objective reality, even if our perceptions, cognitive resources and senses may fail to apprehend it. When doing scientific research, I will go the positivist route mostly, but as far as the metaphysical is concerned, I consider myself a critical realist.

As a critical realist, can you logically prove your beliefs? (since we're concerned with logic here.) And how would perception play a role in those proofs? I've never seen a proof of this sort, so if you can construct one, that would be very interesting.

My question:

Has the universe come to be? I mean, was there a beginning for it? Or is the universe eternal?

Well obviously this question would only lead to a speculative answer. I think that the "eternal" is the same thing as "non-existing." Just because of the concept of both definitions. The former, goes on forever, and the latter never was...and I can't find the words to express this thought I'm having but maybe those 2 definitions are actually the same thing. If you think about it, maybe you'll understand what I'm trying to say...like almost a clash between them just makes them the same. Sorry for that horrible attempt to explain that thought.

Do you feel it?

No, and to be completely honest I never have. When I was little, yes I did believe in god and I prayed and everything. But that was out of habit and out of what I was taught. Never did I actually feel a void. And at the age of 11, I started questioning where all this god stuff comes from. Since I never got a fulfilling answer, I lost all my "faith" since then.

I'd, just by reading this, have given up on this discussion entirely, simply because it's an useless one if you are not prepared to change the way you view things. By definition, the metaphysical is untouchable, so even if a logical argument is provided, and it is sound, it's abandoned in favor of the premise.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of? That there is a truth and knowledge does exist? If so, could you prove it soundly, as you're asking me to do?

If the premise is all that matters, then it's useless to argue logic or evidence.

If the premise itself is absurd, how could I possibly draw a conclusion from it? This argument cannot be put into a form of a proof. And I also doubt that your arguments for truth can.

Even so, I am curious to read your presentation of the case for your worldview. If that fails, well, then it's over I guess. There's nothing left, since you won't abandon your premise.

Basically I'm saying that since we cannot KNOW anything outside of our physical world, {and what we call outside of our physical world = metaphysical) then that metaphysical doesn't even exist to begin with. So spiritually, we do not exist. We are born and we die. But the word existence means more than that, and that's why I refute the word itself.

It is above that by definition. But if there's no logic supporting it, well, I regard it as blind faith and nothing else.

It's not so much blind-faith as it is a lack of faith. There is lack of belief, so how can you call that faith?

Again, I'm going to ask you questions. If you believe nothing exists just because you chose to adopt that worldview regardless of logic or evidence supporting it, I'll consider it an example of blind faith and be done with it.

Please don't be done with this until you can "prove" to me how my argument is false and that there DOES exist truth and knowledge. I'm not being closed-minded, I'm just being argumentative and also skeptical of your view.

 

[OvSeth]

Let's at least keeps this thread clean? Thanks.

 

[Lussi]

Wow I read all the pages !

The conclusion is that I don't even know what is the subject. It is about the meaning of life on earth? or the fact that we have a need to find a meaning for everything?

 

[OvSeth]

I think that Philosophy is basically questioning yourself about life and it's numerous unanswered questions. I'm a bit confused about the topic, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's what I think.

I'll maybe look into it after I'm done with this project, as I find the subject interesting.

 

[Lussi]

Philosophy is about reflexion in order to understand more ourselves, the others, life etc... I also find the discussion interesting but I don't get everything. Maybe Mystique can precise a bit more . The thing is that many subjects have been discussed and it's a bit confusing.