My Philosophical Theory

[Purple]

This is my own personal philosophical theory. It is based on the concept of time, and the place for the individual life in it. I'm sure it's flawed somehow, and it's incredibly theoretical.


Consider that the existance lasts for an eternity. Wether anything exists or not in that eternity does not matter, it is still an eternity. Consider that this eternity can be put as a mathematical number as X, the X representing the eternity of which there is existance. Consider that you, and your life span of approx. 75 years is Y. If you take X and divide it on Y you will have such a small number that it will practically less than nothing.

Now, if you were to pull a card of a deck of an infinite amount of cards, and the one(1)(Y) card that is you existance will appear, then could you possibly consider that to be realistic? So the questions that arises are, can it possibly be realistic? Is it logical? Is there a God?

Answers all three questions are a definite "NO". Therefore, I must conclude that the only possible, logical, and realistic, and omnipotent(?) answer must be that all individuals of this existance are subjects of a form of mass-reincarnation, not necessarily the buddhist kind, but the kind of re-growth. It is born, it lives, it dies, and it is born again.

Another theory that also can be a possibility(if this theory of mine is proven accurate) is the philosophy of Solipsism, which is a way of thinking that you are the only one in existance, and everything that are around you are products of your imagination. I find this of course to be ridicilously narcisstic, yet quite interesting. According to the Bible, that is how we are in the eyes of God.

So give it some pondering... Any answer will be depressing...

Peace

[peaccenicked]

I think if you plough through Marxist literarure, you will find little, on reincarnation, mainly because Marx regarded such matters as vanity. Who are we to live forever?
Marx assumed that knowledge was not personal, that it was social. He assumed that knowledge developed as a whole within our species. If you start from Hegel this is bread and butter.
Much is deduced from this because you cant grasp dialectics as a theory of knowledge without this starting point.
As an evolutionist Marx is concerned about the movement of knowledge, to some degree it is already in Mill. However, I think Marx agreed with Hegel, and Lenin suggests this in his notes on dialectics that knowedge spirals forward, sometimes slipping back into barbarism.

Just before the Spanish Civil war(he died in it), Cristopher Caudwell took up the matter of immortaliy in one of his papers, he deduced from his study that it is knowledge that is immortal, if we survive indefinitely as species, and who is to say that we will be not be able to continue in space somehow. People are social, they spread knowledge and are unwittingly immortal.
There is something in Plekhanov works though from "The role of the Individual in History" . He states that "one can be the last to be wrong, on something, but never the last to be right on something." (I paraphrase here)

This is the essence of materialistic spirituality as such, it is a materialist faith based on the tendency for things to evolve. (it does note we can slip back, perhaps even annhilated) Life is struggle.

[Chrysalis]

Hi Purple:

You say


1. If you take X and divide it on Y you will have such a small number that it will practically less than nothing.

2. Now, if you were to pull a card of a deck of an infinite amount of cards, and the one(1)(Y) card that is you existance will appear, then could you possibly consider that to be realistic? So the questions that arises are, can it possibly be realistic? Is it logical? Is there a God?

3. Answers all three questions are a definite "NO".

4. Therefore, I must conclude that the only possible, logical, and realistic, and omnipotent(?) answer must be that all individuals of this existance are subjects of a form of mass-reincarnation, not necessarily the buddhist kind, but the kind of re-growth. It is born, it lives, it dies, and it is born again.
By "realistic" you mean Y's existence must be of some great chances that it will occur? Like the probability that Y happens is so great it's only logical that it must happen? And because, as you say, the chances of any of us existing in this eternity of existence is so infenitisimal, then it must be just a fluke, an occurence that isn't tied to logic or reason?

I find that any question on the "logic" of existence (what's the purpose of existence) is bound to be frustrated by the fact that it isn't something we could ask, per se, in philosophy, and get a decent answer that does not tie the answer to faith. The fact, if this is a fact, that there was just an infinitesimal chance that we came to existence at all, as opposed to a huge chance, is not, I think, for philosophy to answer. Granted that philosophy answers the question 'What things exist', it does not try to explain philosophically the fact there was very little chance of this occuring. If they are here, they would be talked about. If they aren't here, they would be talked about. Their chances of happening, 0.00001% or 60% is of no concern to philosophy.

Talk of probability, per se, is of course, of a different matter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Purple, sorry but your argument falls before the first hurdle, since your opening sentence is meaningless:


Consider that the existance lasts for an eternity.

I doubt you can explain what it means.

If so, nothing substantial can follow from it.

And it is not the only one; nothing personal, but most of the sentences in your theory lack a sense.

This is not to pick on you; I have yet to encounter a single 'proposition' from traditional philosophy (i.e., that branch of armchair 'knowledge' that has been practiced for 2400+ years in both the West and the East, wherein sedentary 'thinkers' imagine that they can derive several substantial truths about reality from a few words (mostly distorted words -- in some cases even fewer than you manage to use)) that makes the slightest bit of sense.

And until you explain in clear jargon-free language what that rather odd word 'reincarnation' means, we won't have a clue what you are even aiming at.

[Purple]

Reincarnation - you are born, you die, and it repeats in a constant circle, that never ceases

..and I must agree, my first sentence doesnt make much sense when I look at it over again. What I am trying to say is that life a part of an infinite amount of time, and the insignigance of that time we live in, within that infinity.

The "Y" and "X" concepts are just there for representation of the concept. No other practical function of them.

And, yes, peaccenicked, Marx was right, it is damn egocentric.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Purple:


Reincarnation - you are born, you die, and it repeats in a constant circle, that never ceases

Yes I know what people think they mean by this word, I just deny it is anything other than empty jargon.

For example, from what you say, we do not seem to die. So what does your use of "die" mean?

And what exactly is the reference of the "you" here. If there are countless billions of each of us, there is no "you" singular, here.

In that case, do you mean that despite appearances to the contrary, each of us are many (perhaps an infinite many)?


and I must agree, my first sentence doesn’t make much sense when I look at it over again. What I am trying to say is that life a part of an infinite amount of time, and the insignigance [Did you mean “insignificance” here?] of that time we live in, within that infinity.

But this makes no more sense.

How can life be part of time? Surely it exists in time?

And, has time got any parts? If so, what holds them together, and what are they made of? If not, how can anything be a part of time?

[These questions may seem trite, but they are meant to bring out the lack of sense that armchair theorists build into their gnomic sayings. As I noted above, none of these makes any sense when looked at closely like this. You can try to get around these; and good luck, but you would be the first person in 2400+ years to succeed if you do….]

And can you have an infinite amount of anything? “Amount” suggests and end or shape to whatever it qualifies, but that is just what the word ‘infinite’ won’t allow. So you either have to abandon the word “amount” or the word “infinite”.

And if you take either or both of these options, is there anything left here worth saying?

[Cloud]

Something i just wanna add is a question i constantly ask when dealing with theorys on reincarnation. The population consistently grows, so would that mean there are constantly new souls forming? To be honest with everyone, my theory on life is from Final Fantasy 7. If anyone plays/played that game, they know what i mean. Its all just as possible as any other religion, and that one is at least relaxing. I suppose it ties in with reincarnation, but not nessecarily.

Basically, the theory im stating from FF7, is that within the planet is energy, and that energy is what fuels the planet. By this i mean Heat, Core, Mantle, Plates, ETC:. Now everyone who lives is a part of something called the lifestream. The lifestream is what fuels people, without the life stream, there would be no people. There are constantly a large number of souls/spirits within the lifestream, but the lifestream is based on the soul/spirit's choice whether its time to leave. This kinda clears up the question i asked on reincarnation about the formation of new spirits. Well before i go more into my rather raspy explanation of it, i'd suggest just playing the game anyway. Youll learn something and have fun with it, trust me.

[Leo]

Purple


Consider that the existance lasts for an eternity. Wether anything exists or not in that eternity does not matter, it is still an eternity. Consider that this eternity can be put as a mathematical number as X, the X representing the eternity of which there is existance. Consider that you, and your life span of approx. 75 years is Y. If you take X and divide it on Y you will have such a small number that it will practically less than nothing.

Now, if you were to pull a card of a deck of an infinite amount of cards, and the one(1)(Y) card that is you existance will appear, then could you possibly consider that to be realistic? So the questions that arises are, can it possibly be realistic? Is it logical? Is there a God?

Answers all three questions are a definite "NO". Therefore, I must conclude that the only possible, logical, and realistic, and omnipotent(?) answer must be that all individuals of this existance are subjects of a form of mass-reincarnation, not necessarily the buddhist kind, but the kind of re-growth. It is born, it lives, it dies, and it is born again.

Hmm...let's see if I managed to understand what you mean correctly.

- If matter(?) had existed and will exist forever, the possibility of our birth and lives will be less than nothing.
- This is not logical, realistic and proves that god doesn't exist.
-The only logical and realistic explanation to our lives is that we always lived in the form of instant rebirth after each death.

I might be misunderstanding you because considering the way you've written it's very easy! :) :D :lol:

But still, this being said, I have a few objections to your philosophy.

If matter had existed forever, which is an assumption depending on another assumption that time passes circularly (which is a very interesting idea, but right now unprovable), and we know that according to the laws of physics nothing can be destroyed and created, it would mean that we always existed and will always exist, but not in the form of biological living beings, in the form of atoms. Life is just a complexity of material. The eternal existance of matter has nothing to do with our lives, when we die, the atoms that form our body becomes one with the soil, we are those atoms, therefore the idea of instant rebirth falls apart.

One last thing comrade, no offence but...
Are you sure you are sober? :rolleyes: :lol:

Cloud

Well, when you start dealing with 'soul', you are already in methaphysics. It doesn't matter if you call it heaven, hell, lifestream etc. What matters is realizing the material reality.

Rosa


And can you have an infinite amount of anything? “Amount” suggests and end or shape to whatever it qualifies, but that is just what the word ‘infinite’ won’t allow. So you either have to abandon the word “amount” or the word “infinite”.


Hmm, just like materialist dialectics :) :D :lol:

[Purple]

Leo, that was a pretty genious way of looking at it, if I might say it myself. That kinds of ruin my path for further argument though.. Well Well...

Anyway, the idea I am trying to promote is that the possibility of us living in 75 years, and that those 75 years are within an eternity, and the "probability" for those 75 years are taking place -right now- is a probability so small that it equals to nothing. And yes, I see your way of thinking when saying that the matter of which we consist always consists, but to make this simpler; my starting point for this "life" that I am refering to is from the moment where the individual manages to gather thoughts and physical individuality in the form of a being. Damn, as an ESL student I sure can't keep my sentences straight. Try to make it logical in your head...

PS: Leo, the blessing of Marxist enlightenment will leave you as sober as it can possibly be. Until you corrupt it with good old Canadian physical intoxication... or I'm not sure if that's physical or mental... It is supposed to be a central-stimulant("they" say).. As Morrissey once so geniously asked; "Does the mind rule the body, or the body rule the mind?"

[Leo]

Purple, thanks. I'm glad I understood what you were saying.


Anyway, the idea I am trying to promote is that the possibility of us living in 75 years, and that those 75 years are within an eternity, and the "probability" for those 75 years are taking place -right now- is a probability so small that it equals to nothing... ; my starting point for this "life" that I am refering to is from the moment where the individual manages to gather thoughts and physical individuality in the form of a being.

Well, lets try a different way of thinking... I would say there is no probabilty regarding event occuring in time. Marx has a nice quote, he says "Whatever happened to this day happened because it couldn't have happened elseway." So as for or life, we can say that it couldn't have happened, materially, elseway, because it already happened. So past events were inevitable. Of course, here a question will rise, what will happen in the future? How is the future determined? Objectively, the future is not that different from the past, because what is future right now will become past at one point. Then we can say the future is inevitable too. The moment, the situation we are living in right now is actually the only time we are free to act, we are free to rebel, and the choices we make now create the inevitable, and the choices we make are our historical mission. Also in a way, be can be interpreted as we move through time instead of time passes by, therefore we always live in this constant 'present'.


Damn, as an ESL student I sure can't keep my sentences straight. Try to make it logical in your head...

As someone who has 'been there', I would suggest you to try to keep everything as simple as possible instead of using the 'cloudy' language of ancient philosophers (and fortunetellers :D ) I can speak English (almost) better than my first language and still would not try to use that kind of language. In fact, I would not try to use that kind of language in my first language either.


Leo, the blessing of Marxist enlightenment will leave you as sober as it can possibly be. Until you corrupt it with good old Canadian physical intoxication... or I'm not sure if that's physical or mental... It is supposed to be a central-stimulant("they" say).. As Morrissey once so geniously asked; "Does the mind rule the body, or the body rule the mind?"

:) :D :lol:

Well, all that remains from Marxist enlightenment when I corrupt it with intoxication is something like this: "Marx, Engels... :huh: ... Let's drink another bottle of Guinness! :lol:" As for Morrissey's quote, I'd say it goes both way, so intoxication is really both physical and mental. Probably it wouldn't be half as useful if it wasn't both...
:D :wacko: :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Hmm, just like materialist dialectics

Well, yes; all philosophical 'theories' derive from a quirky use of language, as you can see is the case with Purple.

What happens is that the alleged truth of the theory dreamt up by lone thinkers (who are in effect in this regard social atoms, petty-bourgeois theorists -- no need to join a union or set up a philosophy factory -- private ownership in the means of theory production), the truth of these theories depends on the words used (hence it seems 'self-evident to the one doing the concocting, i.e., they need no material evidence to prove their truth).

But the words used are either jargonised neologisms, or distorted ordinary words, or they are words of indeterminate meaning (as above). At any rate they are not words drawn from everyday material language, and hence cannot form part of a materialist theory.

They are thus all idealist (and nonsensical because they cannot be given a material sense -- as I allege above); but people play along with this since it seems like an easy way to ascertain 'truths' about reality.

But scientific truth takes years to establish and has to be rigorously tested.

Armchair theorists try to short-circuit this with a few minutes of 'philosophising' (often based on shaky home-spun logic, like dialectics, or on distorted language, as here).

This means that we can all find our own 'self-evident' truths about nature, on the cheap (no nasty experiments, no expensive equipment, no qualifications), and hey presto the universe suddenly has meaning, or a point to it, and we get our opium shot.

So this is a secular version of religious belief (in fact these (i.e., traditional philosophy and theology) often tail off into one another as you see in this case -- dialectics tails off into, and arose out of, Hermetic theology).

Of course, ruling-class theorist do all this with more style, and at greater length, and with more 'learning and better jargon; but the results are the same: the universe has an a priori structure, accessible to thought alone (which is safe from scientific refutation since it is not based on anything material), and so there is a natural order to things --, so get back to work, and doff your cap while you do it, you should be grateful for a job....

That is why I always bring these theories down to earth by asking what they mean in materially-grounded language, as I did above.

[Leo]

What happens is that the alleged truth of the theory dreamt up by lone thinkers (who are in effect in this regard social atoms, petty-bourgeois theorists -- no need to join a union or set up a philosophy factory -- private ownership in the means of theory production), the truth of these theories depends on the words used (hence it seems 'self-evident to the one doing the concocting, i.e., they need no material evidence to prove their truth).

Well, that's philosophy, or the way philosophy had been since it's very beginnings. I don't remember any 'collective' philosophers, or any philosophers who cared about proving what they say at least in Europe and East. Native American hunter-gatherer societies probably developed their philosophies collectively and in time. As they never had private property, there was no reason for their philosphies to be manipulated into tools protecting it. Nevertheless, I don't think they cared about proving it either because the reason behind ancient philosophy is to explain the unprovable.


But the words used are either jargonised neologisms, or distorted ordinary words, or they are words of indeterminate meaning (as above). At any rate they are not words drawn from everyday material language, and hence cannot form part of a materialist theory.

They are thus all idealist (and nonsensical because they cannot be given a material sense -- as I allege above); but people play along with this since it seems like an easy way to ascertain 'truths' about reality.

I think any 'idealist' theory can be re-phrased and explained with everyday material language. Not only is it possible, but it is crucial, because only then can the real face of the idealist theory be seen, and why it is unprovable can be shown, not only to the public eye but also to the idealist.


But scientific truth takes years to establish and has to be rigorously tested.

Armchair theorists try to short-circuit this with a few minutes of 'philosophising' (often based on shaky home-spun logic, like dialectics, or on distorted language, as here).

This means that we can all find our own 'self-evident' truths about nature, on the cheap (no nasty experiments, no expensive equipment, no qualifications), and hey presto the universe suddenly has meaning, or a point to it, and we get our opium shot.

So this is a secular version of religious belief (in fact these (i.e., traditional philosophy and theology) often tail off into one another as you see in this case -- dialectics tails off into, and arose out of, Hermetic theology).


There is also another aspect of religion in philosophy, it is possible to get the same comfort from philosophy regarding death, afterlife, 'divine' justice etc. But it is harder to get those what religion is 'designed' to give from classical philosophy because in the classical philosophy, one must usually be sophisticated (and have a great amount of time and nothing else to do) to design his or her own religion in order to get this comfort.

From that aspect, we can actually say that, instead of philosophy being a secular version of religious beliefe, religion is a dogmatic version of philosophical belief.


Of course, ruling-class theorist do all this with more style, and at greater length, and with more 'learning and better jargon;

Unfortunately <_< ... This is very similar to a group of little children excluding other children who doesn&#39;t own the most &#39;popular&#39; toy from their &#39;game&#39;. When you think about it, most idealist philosophers are as arrogant as immature children who grew up in and already embraced some aspects of the capitalist system.


That is why I always bring these theories down to earth by asking what they mean in materially-grounded language, as I did above.

What I try to do is to re-phrase the arguement in answering such questions myself from the text.

As for the general stance of &#39;making&#39; philosophy, I would say that philosophy will exist as long as some aspect of the universe remains unknown. Philosophy is a form of speculation. It is crucial to understand what philosophy is. After this undertanding, philosophy won&#39;t be dangerous because it won&#39;t prevent us from focusing us on current material conditions but after the revolution, we can all sit in a cafe and speculate (of course without the &#39;cloudy&#39; language) under heavy tobacco smoke about things we can never prove, just for the sake of the enjoyment of a good discussion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


I think any &#39;idealist&#39; theory can be re-phrased and explained with everyday material language.

I challenge you to try -- and suggest you won&#39;t succeed.


religion is a dogmatic version of philosophical belief.

I think you are confusing religion with theology.

Theology is the dogmatic form of religious belief. Philosophy and theology have been traditionally linked, but this is not necessary; there are major differences.

Anyway, it matters not; traditional philosophy allegedly reveals an a priori structure to reality, one established by a quirky use of words (a bit like Purple&#39;s own use of language in his &#39;theory&#39;), and nothing else; so it is a complete sham. In that sense it provides non-religious consolation for those taken in by this linguistic fraud.

It cannot reveal anything about reality since it is based on empty phraseology, no more than the nonsense rhymes of Edward Lear or Lewis Carroll can either.


As for the general stance of &#39;making&#39; philosophy, I would say that philosophy will exist as long as some aspect of the universe remains unknown.

Well, it will last just so long as human beings think they can derive a few easy truths from the quirky use of a handful of words.

It is to be hoped that as science develops and (in a socialist society) as the need for religious and non-religious opiates slowly vanishes, the need to project empty words onto reality (in the pretence this is a substitute for hard scientific effort, when it is bogus science on the cheap) will peter out.

And while there remain unanswered questions about nature, science (not philosophy, since it is a total sham) will be needed.


Philosophy is a form of speculation. It is crucial to understand what philosophy is.

Well that is what the brochure says, but, as I pointed out, when you examine the delivered article all you see are twisted words, and piss-poor logic.

So, it&#39;s not &#39;speculation&#39;, it is out-and-out distortion.


After this understanding, philosophy won&#39;t be dangerous because it won&#39;t prevent us from focusing us on current material conditions but after the revolution, we can all sit in a cafe and speculate (of course without the &#39;cloudy&#39; language) under heavy tobacco smoke about things we can never prove, just for the sake of the enjoyment of a good discussion.

This sort of past-time is about as useful (and entertaining) as the following (an example I have used here before):

Imagine someone observing a game of chess, who then says "Hang on a minute, that King over there. I don&#39;t remember the coronation; and when did he marry that Queen? And who gave planning permission to put that castle there; has that horse been fed...?"

You would rightly regard such a person as mad.

But philosophers do the same sort of thing with language. They take words from their normal, everyday use, from the material contexts where they have their life (language ‘goes on holiday’ to quote Wittgenstein), wrench them from these surroundings and ask all manner of odd questions, and derive seemingly startling &#39;truths&#39; from such deformed expressions.

So, someone might wonder if it is in the nature of the shape of the King in chess that gives it its special properties in the game, or maybe the wood or ivory from which it is made (ignoring the rules for the normal use of these pieces).

Similarly, philosophers ask whether it is in the nature of &#39;time&#39; to be what it is, or in the nature of &#39;space&#39;, pulling these words away from their normal contexts of use (ignoring these while they do it), not noticing that when they do that these words no longer function in the way they used to, and all meaning vanishes, leaving an empty slate upon which they can write their own fantasies (as in the chess example).

Just as, when one divorces say the King in chess from the rules of the game and the way these are employed, philosophers do the same with material language.

In the chess example we all know what to say: we would regard it as a peculiar from of intellectual/sub-intellectual lunacy.

But, in the case of philosophy, we all nod our heads sagely, and say it is profound, or entertaining, or revealing, or harmless, or....

Not me; I am happy to call it ruling-class bo**locks.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:14 AM
This is my own personal philosophical theory. It is based on the concept of time, and the place for the individual life in it. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s flawed somehow, and it&#39;s incredibly theoretical.


Consider that the existance lasts for an eternity. Wether anything exists or not in that eternity does not matter, it is still an eternity. Consider that this eternity can be put as a mathematical number as X, the X representing the eternity of which there is existance. Consider that you, and your life span of approx. 75 years is Y. If you take X and divide it on Y you will have such a small number that it will practically less than nothing.

Now, if you were to pull a card of a deck of an infinite amount of cards, and the one(1)(Y) card that is you existance will appear, then could you possibly consider that to be realistic? So the questions that arises are, can it possibly be realistic? Is it logical? Is there a God?

Answers all three questions are a definite "NO". Therefore, I must conclude that the only possible, logical, and realistic, and omnipotent(?) answer must be that all individuals of this existance are subjects of a form of mass-reincarnation, not necessarily the buddhist kind, but the kind of re-growth. It is born, it lives, it dies, and it is born again.

Another theory that also can be a possibility(if this theory of mine is proven accurate) is the philosophy of Solipsism, which is a way of thinking that you are the only one in existance, and everything that are around you are products of your imagination. I find this of course to be ridicilously narcisstic, yet quite interesting. According to the Bible, that is how we are in the eyes of God.

So give it some pondering... Any answer will be depressing...

Peace
If anything at all, you "proved" that existance does not last for an eternity.

Infinity does not exist, etc.

Or else nothing would be / everything would be.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17 2006, 11:35 PM
As for the general stance of &#39;making&#39; philosophy, I would say that philosophy will exist as long as some aspect of the universe remains unknown. Philosophy is a form of speculation. It is crucial to understand what philosophy is. After this undertanding, philosophy won&#39;t be dangerous because it won&#39;t prevent us from focusing us on current material conditions but after the revolution, we can all sit in a cafe and speculate (of course without the &#39;cloudy&#39; language) under heavy tobacco smoke about things we can never prove, just for the sake of the enjoyment of a good discussion.
You&#39;re one-third right. Philosophy will exist as long as there is an interest in the :

1) unknown, or what we think we don&#39;t know,
2) but also in what&#39;s known, or at least in what we think we know,
3) and most importantly in what we think can be known.

There&#39;s three types there. The third, I think is the most interesting, as it has provided ethicists, theorists, empiricists, and skeptics alike something to squabble about with each other.

And don&#39;t understimate the power of philosophical thinking to provide us with enjoyment. Did you know that boredom is a disease that kills millions of people each year?

It&#39;s like this. When Archimedes shouted "Eureka&#33; I&#39;ve got it&#33;", he was shushed by Eratosthenes, who at the time was close to approximating the diameter of the earth. Archimedes shot back, "It&#39;s okay Eratosthenes. I only got the density. Nothing at all to do with philosophy. So relax."

You know the phrase "Screw you&#33;"? It&#39;s attributed to Archimedes.

See, no one really wanted to know anything. Because they were afraid of one thing: dying of boredom. Nope. Not the claws of the tigers, nor the javelins of the enemies, nor starvation and plague. It&#39;s boredom.

There were spies looking for people who were pretending they knew nothing about reality. By the way, wire-taps weren&#39;t invented in the U.S. They were invented in Agrinio, an ancient city in Greece. Spying on those who knew, hence the catch phrase "Who knew?"

[Leo]

Rosa,


I challenge you to try -- and suggest you won&#39;t succeed.

Well, I might not be succesful enough to re-phrase it exactly, but I would be succesful enough to prove that the specific &#39;idealist&#39; theory doesn&#39;t make any sense in the material grounds, so if you want you can &#39;shoot&#39; a random idealist theory and see how I do.
:) :D :lol:


I think you are confusing religion with theology.

Theology is the dogmatic form of religious belief. Philosophy and theology have been traditionally linked, but this is not necessary; there are major differences.


That was what I tried to mean, I wasn&#39;t imagining religious beliefs of a peasant, it was just that the word &#39;theology&#39; didn&#39;t come up to my mind.


Well, it will last just so long as human beings think they can derive a few easy truths from the quirky use of a handful of words.

It is to be hoped that as science develops and (in a socialist society) as the need for religious and non-religious opiates slowly vanishes, the need to project empty words onto reality (in the pretence this is a substitute for hard scientific effort, when it is bogus science on the cheap) will peter out.

And while there remain unanswered questions about nature, science (not philosophy, since it is a total sham) will be needed.

I pretty much agree with that. No doubt that philosophy will not be taken seriously at least.


Well that is what the brochure says, but, as I pointed out, when you examine the delivered article all you see are twisted words, and piss-poor logic.

So, it&#39;s not &#39;speculation&#39;, it is out-and-out distortion.

The brochure actually says &#39;the love of knowledge&#39; <_< :lol: ... Speculation is usually done only by &#39;twisted words&#39; and piss-poor logic. In the case of philosophy it had always been done with that, altough it can be done with simple logic as well it might just be called with a different name after that point so I guess you are right.


Imagine someone observing a game of chess, who then says "Hang on a minute, that King over there. I don&#39;t remember the coronation; and when did he marry that Queen? And who gave planning permission to put that castle there; has that horse been fed...?"

You would rightly regard such a person as mad.

But philosophers do the same sort of thing with language. They take words from their normal, everyday use, from the material contexts where they have their life (language ‘goes on holiday’ to quote Wittgenstein), wrench them from these surroundings and ask all manner of odd questions, and derive seemingly startling &#39;truths&#39; from such deformed expressions.

So, someone might wonder if it is in the nature of the shape of the King in chess that gives it its special properties in the game, or maybe the wood or ivory from which it is made (ignoring the rules for the normal use of these pieces).

Similarly, philosophers ask whether it is in the nature of &#39;time&#39; to be what it is, or in the nature of &#39;space&#39;, pulling these words away from their normal contexts of use (ignoring these while they do it), not noticing that when they do that these words no longer function in the way they used to, and all meaning vanishes, leaving an empty slate upon which they can write their own fantasies (as in the chess example).

Just as, when one divorces say the King in chess from the rules of the game and the way these are employed, philosophers do the same with material language.

In the chess example we all know what to say: we would regard it as a peculiar from of intellectual/sub-intellectual lunacy.

But, in the case of philosophy, we all nod our heads sagely, and say it is profound, or entertaining, or revealing, or harmless, or....

Not me; I am happy to call it ruling-class bo**locks.

I agree very much with what you are saying here :) :D :lol:

But, ah, you see it is one of &#39;those things&#39;... You would probably think someone who is drunk is also &#39;mad&#39;, the person would most definetly be acting like one, and if the person is drunk all the time, he won&#39;t be different from a madman. Some people will always, no matter what, drink every once in a while (including me), what is important is that those people realize what drinking is, so that they don&#39;t become alcholics. Same thing goes for philosophy. Some people will probably sit and talk about philosophy every once in a while, but as long as they don&#39;t take seriosly or decide to be philosophers, I don&#39;t see any harm in that. (The reason why I use this &#39;drinking&#39; example too often with philosophy is because of the fact that I would still be a hopeless dialectician if I didn&#39;t drink. After spending some time &#39;drunk&#39; with dialectics, I realized this and I had been drunk enough in the past to know that no good can come from it so I pushed myself to question this philosophy...)

Maybe you are taking &#39;philosophy&#39; too seriously, or maybe I am not taking it seriosly enough... After all, almost everything, including science, had been used by the ruling class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Well, I might not be succesful enough to re-phrase it exactly, but I would be succesful enough to prove that the specific &#39;idealist&#39; theory doesn&#39;t make any sense in the material grounds, so if you want you can &#39;shoot&#39; a random idealist theory and see how I do.

No offense, Leo, but I&#39;d rather watch my toenails grow.

You pick your own.


Some people will probably sit and talk about philosophy every once in a while, but as long as they don&#39;t take seriosly or decide to be philosophers, I don&#39;t see any harm in that.

No harm in collecting bus numbers either; but is it anything a mature revolutionary wants to be seen dead doing? [Let alone admitting to doing?]


After all, almost everything, including science, had been used by the ruling class.

Correct, but the key thing is that science has to stand up to material reality; philosophy and theology do not.

[Leo]

Chrysalis;


You&#39;re one-third right. Philosophy will exist as long as there is an interest in the :

1) unknown, or what we think we don&#39;t know,
2) but also in what&#39;s known, or at least in what we think we know,
3) and most importantly in what we think can be known.

Well, I disagree. I think the second one is &#39;practical science&#39; and the third one is &#39;theoretical science&#39;. Philosophy has nothing to say on those subjects.


Did you know that boredom is a disease that kills millions of people each year?

No, I did not know that... Seriously? :huh:


See, no one really wanted to know anything. Because they were afraid of one thing: dying of boredom. Nope. Not the claws of the tigers, nor the javelins of the enemies, nor starvation and plague. It&#39;s boredom.

Well, I wouldn&#39;t doubt that they enjoyed what they were doing, but one can find much better things to do against boredom instead of philosophy, examples to that being drinking, reading, socializing, eating and things like that.

[Leo]

Rosa,


No offense, Leo, but I&#39;d rather watch my toenails grow.

You pick your own.


But you are the one who challenged me... Not only would it not be fair if I could pick any idealist theory that I already tried to re-phrase, and succeded (or think I succeeded, or convinced other people that I succeded), but I&#39;d probably rather doing something else too (altough not watching my toenails grow, or collecting bus numbers.) I have no desire to &#39;prove&#39; myself.


No harm in collecting bus numbers either; but is it anything a mature revolutionary wants to be seen dead doing? [Let alone admitting to doing?]

But of course, if a mature revolutionary want to collect bus numbers in his free time, neither should that person be ashamed of this, nor can I judge that person, that persons matureness or revolutionary qualities. It&#39;s that person&#39;s method of having fun, nothing to be ashamed of. (Altough it would probably be a weird situation.)


Correct, but the key thing is that science has to stand up to material reality; philosophy and theology do not.

Also correct, that&#39;s why science should be taken seriosly and things such as philosophy and theology should not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo, this sounds like &#39;he started it first&#39;; aren&#39;t we above this?


But you are the one who challenged me...

Well, I actually challenged a boast of yours.

If you can&#39;t, won&#39;t, or do not want to, give content to that bravado, it won&#39;t bother me too much.

Although, I think if it were as easy to do as you say, you would have done it by now.

Confession time:


But of course, if a mature revolutionary want to collect bus numbers in his free time, neither should that person be ashamed of this

I beg to differ.

It looks like we have got to the &#39;point scoring&#39; stage -- i.e., we appear to have run out of things to say to one another that we either disagree about, or care enough about to disagree over.

So, I&#39;ll nip off and collect a few bus numbers for you....

[Leo]

Well, I actually challenged a boast of yours.

Well, it wasn&#39;t a boast, re-phrasing is not anything extraordinary and it can be done by anyone and I said I am trying to do it. Here&#39;s an example:


(Hegel, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Part III: The Philosophy of Spirit iii: Absolute Spirit, © Philosophy § 572)
Philosophy is the unity of art and religion, as the simple intuition and substantial production of art are elevated to self-conscious thought through the separation into parts and the mediation of religion. In this element the self-conscious idea purifies itself just as much from its first immediacy as from the appearance of the event, from the contingency, the externality, and the sequential nature which its content has in religion. This knowledge is thus the concept of art and religion in which the diverse elements of the content are recognised as necessary, and this necessity and immediacy are recognised as free.

Here is what I think Hegel is saying materially (not what he intends to say):
- Making philosophy takes creativity of producing art, turns it into creativity of producing thoughts that are aware of themselves (&#33;&#33;&#33;) (It also eliminates physican talent because it is obviously not necessary.)
- Making philosophy takes (religious) belief because after the idea which is aware of itself is believed to be seperate from the material world.
-So philosophical knowledge is a mixture of art and religion because its different elements are necessary and free.

Here is how it &#39;clearly&#39; doesn&#39;t make sense.

a) Ideas can&#39;t be aware of themselves because they don&#39;t exist in the material world independently.
b) No matter what is done, an idea can&#39;t be seperated from the material world and the events because it is formed in the head of the individual.
c) Different elements of philosophical knowledge are not necessary, therefore they are free (necessary and free is an oxymoron -did I use that word correctly?) as the person imagines them. Philsophical knowledge is not a mixture of art and religion in the way Hegel explains, but as one person first &#39;makes&#39; something up, depending on his or her own creativity, and then believes it, philosophy has some aspects of creativity and religious belief.


It looks like we have got to the &#39;point scoring&#39; stage -- i.e., we appear to have run out of things to say to one another that we either disagree about, or care enough about to disagree over.

Well, what I disagreed was looking down upon people who enjoy philosophy and my point was that as long as what philosophy is, is understood, there would be no danger.

Oh well, I&#39;ll try to look at your web-site. Maybe I&#39;ll find something that I disagree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice try:


producing thoughts that are aware of themselves

Oops, you anthropomorphised thoughts....

And, I&#39;ll be blowed, you did it again:


the idea which is aware of itself

Now topped with a layer of mysticism:


its different elements are necessary and free.

Now, you miss the point:


Ideas can&#39;t be aware of themselves because they don&#39;t exist in the material world independently.

How do you know? What would it be for them to be self-aware (i.e., what are you ruling out)?

[As soon as you try to say, you enter this nonsensical world of non-material language.]


No matter what is done, an idea can&#39;t be seperated from the material world and the events because it is formed in the head of the individual.

Same point.

[As I tried to tell you, you can&#39;&#39;t make sense of nonsense -- as Wittgenstein said, the negation of nosense is still nonsense.]

Not too good a job then of putting these prize &#39;thoughts&#39; into material language and making them comprehensible.

I, for one, still haven&#39;t a clue what they mean.

[I explain why at my site, and why you will always fail. Link below.]


as long as what philosophy is, is understood, there would be no danger.

Just as there is no danger in digging holes just to fill them in; and why would you want to do that....?

Here is a link to the summary of Essay Twelve (where I try to show that no sense at all can be made of traditional Philosophy -- recall that the full Essay goes into far more detail; it will be posted over the next year or so):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[Leo]

Nice try

Thanks... I am very close to being convinced actually but still I will answer the specific questions you made about my arguements.


Oops, you anthropomorphised thoughts....

Hegel did actually, I just tried to make it more obvious.


How do you know? What would it be for them to be self-aware (i.e., what are you ruling out)?

[As soon as you try to say, you enter this nonsensical world of non-material language.]

Well, if something is to be self-aware, then it must be material, and it must be alive so if an &#39;idea&#39; is self-aware, it is not an idea but a living being&#33;


As I tried to tell you, you can&#39;&#39;t make sense of nonsense -- as Wittgenstein said, the negation of nosense is still nonsense.

I agree with this. The only thing I intent to do with trying to re-phrase it is to show that the arguement clearly doesn&#39;t make sense. So I attempt to remove the cloudy language they are hiding behind and why you are really close to convince me is because there is not much behind the cloudy language&#33;


Just as there is no danger in digging holes just to fill them in; and why would you want to do that....?

I don&#39;t know... maybe because of the same reason why people invented it in the first place, maybe you are right and it will completely vanish. We will see...


Here is a link to the summary of Essay Twelve (where I try to show that no sense at all can be made of traditional Philosophy -- recall that the full Essay goes into far more detail; it will be posted over the next year or so):

If that&#39;s the summary I wonder how long it will take me to read the actual essay&#33; Oh well, I&#39;ll read the summary as fast as possible and comment on it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


then it must be material, and it must be alive so if an &#39;idea&#39; is self-aware, it is not an idea but a living being&#33;

How do you know?

Perhaps we haven&#39;t looked hard enough.

[As Wittgenstein says, when it comes to linguistic conventions like these, you find you have to start using modal modifiers, like &#39;must&#39;).

There is no &#39;must&#39; here ( amust can only apply to thought, of if to the wworld, only if it is mind; events are not intellignet, they cannot force one another to obey their commands, not casn they give or recieve them (these are conventions too); what you have are certain ways we use words in material contexts; outside those contexts their use has no sense (like a Knight outside the game of chess). So when Hegel uses certain words in idiosyncratic ways, there is no translation possible.

So if I were to tell you that I had check-mated the goalie in football (i.e., non-US football), any attempted translation into football langauge could not succeed.

That is why your attempt to make Hegel comprehensible must always fail.

What looks like a &#39;must&#39; is a sure sign you have hit a linguitsic convention.


maybe because of the same reason why people invented it in the first place, maybe you are right and it will completely vanish.

I outline my (scientific, not philosophical&#33;) theory as to how and why metaphysics arose (this is the most original part of my thesis, since I provide for the first time ever a fully materialist account of the origin of ruling-class thought, encapulated in traditional philosophy), and how it has been imported into dialectics by comrades like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.

A summary can be found at the link above.

The full version will appear in my PhD thesis, but I will publish parts in Essay Twelve later this year or next year.

[Dark_outlook 06]

My theory on everything is simply this do whatever you want because nothing truly matters I dont believe in any religion although I am not an atheist there may be no god or devil but I do believe there is good and evil and if nothing matters then why be tethered by good embrace evil and destruction and death I may be new here and not as old or intelligent as the rest of you but I Know what a good idea is and this is it dont go on trying to impress everybody forget about them make your short little blip of an existence fun for you

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Chrysalis+--> (Chrysalis)

1) unknown, or what we think we don&#39;t know,
2) but also in what&#39;s known, or at least in what we think we know,
3) and most importantly in what we think can be known.[/b]


Originally posted by Leo [email protected]
Well, I disagree. I think the second one is &#39;practical science&#39; and the third one is &#39;theoretical science&#39;. Philosophy has nothing to say on those subjects.
The evaluative aspect of knowledge is done outside its claims. Zum Beispiel, if I say that based on observation, "Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen", science has made a factual claim. (This is your number 2 above). The next question then, Is this knowledge?, has an interest not in the fact that it is a fact, but in What right do we have to count that as knowledge? That is the evaluative analysis. Is something coming out of induction knowledge? And on this, philosophers will have differing opinion. So, you see, philosophy does evaluate even the most accepted and basic and commonsensical claim of "knowledge". It does not spare science just because it has given us facts.

Your characterization of the third is silly. Theoreticals are all factual, speculative, mathematical, pragmatic, social, psychological, etc. Number 3 is the most important because it is difficult to find the limits to what they are. If we know the limits of something, we could have a really good idea of that something. This is what keeps philosophy alive.



Leo Uilleann
Well, I wouldn&#39;t doubt that they enjoyed what they were doing, but one can find much better things to do against boredom instead of philosophy, examples to that being drinking, reading, socializing, eating and things like that.
Well, again, this is an ethical judgment of what&#39;s good to do. So, there are people who gamble, there are people who view porn, there are people who gossip and watch celebrities, there are people who just watch tv all day. And then there are people who engage in philosophy. How did you arrive at the judgment drinking, gambling, socializing, eating are better than philosophy? You listed reading as one of the better things to do than philosophy, well, philosophy requires a lot of reading. How many bong hits have you done today?

Surely, this is just an opinion of yours. I have a different opinion. And that&#39;s that. You need to be persuasive on why gambling or drinking, for example, are better than doing philosophy to pass time.

[Leo]

Rosa,


How do you know?

Perhaps we haven&#39;t looked hard enough.

I would probably stop talking with the Hegelian at that poin, after all he can&#39;t prove his claim etiher...


There is no &#39;must&#39; here ( amust can only apply to thought, of if to the wworld, only if it is mind; events are not intellignet, they cannot force one another to obey their commands, not casn they give or recieve them (these are conventions too); what you have are certain ways we use words in material contexts; outside those contexts their use has no sense (like a Knight outside the game of chess). So when Hegel uses certain words in idiosyncratic ways, there is no translation possible.

So if I were to tell you that I had check-mated the goalie in football (i.e., non-US football), any attempted translation into football langauge could not succeed.

That is why your attempt to make Hegel comprehensible must always fail.

What looks like a &#39;must&#39; is a sure sign you have hit a linguitsic convention.


Yeah I see your point and I agree... You did convince me on this.

[Leo]

Chrysalis


The evaluative aspect of knowledge is done outside its claims. Zum Beispiel, if I say that based on observation, "Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen", science has made a factual claim. (This is your number 2 above). The next question then, Is this knowledge?, has an interest not in the fact that it is a fact, but in What right do we have to count that as knowledge? That is the evaluative analysis. Is something coming out of induction knowledge? And on this, philosophers will have differing opinion.

"Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen" is a statement, we know that it is true, therefore it is knowledge. If we knew it was false, it would be knowledge too. If we had no idea about its truth, it would be just a speculation.


So, you see, philosophy does evaluate even the most accepted and basic and commonsensical claim of "knowledge". It does not spare science just because it has given us facts.

Yes, philosophy is very methaphysical, the question is: Is that a good thing?


Your characterization of the third is silly. Theoreticals are all factual, speculative, mathematical, pragmatic, social, psychological, etc. Number 3 is the most important because it is difficult to find the limits to what they are. If we know the limits of something, we could have a really good idea of that something. This is what keeps philosophy alive.

If there is something that we think we can know, philosophy is most definetly unable to help us. We think that we can know what water is made up of, we do scientific research, we learn what water is made up of and there: we have theoretical knowledge, the reason behind theoretical science. After that point we can advance practical science, find a way to put that theoretical knowledge in use. This development of the method of aquiring material knowledge, science, kills philosophy.

Now, we could sit in a nice, quiet place, and talk about what water is made up of, and one could say &#39;its made up of grass&#39;, and the other could say &#39;no its made up of fire&#39; and maybe a more scientific fellow who actually observed rain drops could say &#39;no its made up of air&#39;, but none would learn the truth&#33;


Well, again, this is an ethical judgment of what&#39;s good to do. So, there are people who gamble, there are people who view porn, there are people who gossip and watch celebrities, there are people who just watch tv all day. And then there are people who engage in philosophy. How did you arrive at the judgment drinking, gambling, socializing, eating are better than philosophy? You listed reading as one of the better things to do than philosophy, well, philosophy requires a lot of reading. How many bong hits have you done today?

I didn&#39;t give the gambling example actually, but I&#39;ll start from that. If people knew what philosophy was, gambling would be worse than that. They do it for the slime possibility of winning, and usually they lose everything they have, but they know what it is, they know it is dangerous and harmful. Philosophy is not dangerous or harmful when you know what it is, but if you actually take material decisions based on philosophy, or even influence someone to do that, you ruin the material conditions. Philosophy is quite similar to watching tv all day, watching porn, gossiping about celebrities etc. Both don&#39;t achieve anything materially, both are some forms of drugs, intended to take the person from the material conditions of the world. I would prefer philosophy to tv, but that&#39;s just my choice of drug, objectively they are the same. As for eating it is pretty obvious why it is not only a better thing to do, but a necessary thing. We would die if we did not eat&#33; Socializing and drinking, they are usually related, are also much better. Human relationships, sharing common feelings, those develop one more than anything. As for reading, I admit that if you want to understand what those famous philosophers say, you will need to read a dictionary, but other than that, all philosophy takes is thinking and believing.
As long as we know what philosophy is and therefore don&#39;t take it seriously and we don&#39;t believe what we made up, there isn&#39;t much harm in it, just like watching tv. But I would prefer sharing common feelings with other human beings, or taking hikes in the nature or reading a well-written story. The material world is a very beautiful place...

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen" is a statement, we know that it is true, therefore it is knowledge. If we knew it was false, it would be knowledge too. If we had no idea about its truth, it would be just a speculation.[/b]
You&#39;re still not getting my point. Sure. Science said it is "true", and we have, since the time of bla bla bla, been taking it for granted that that particular information and such likes constitute knowledge.

Are you comprehending me, Leo? Okay. No getting mad.

To continue......we just took it for granted that that&#39;s knowledge. Later evaluation and philosophizing of &#39;What is knowledge&#39; approved that that is knowledge. Sure. But, everything we know gets under the philosophical radar. What you&#39;ve been saying is this: "science said that it is true that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, because science said it is true, then that is knowledge."

Where did you get the "therefore"? Where did you deduce the therefore? From the fact that science said so. Is this a valid argument?

Now, I want you to read my post in slow motion. No getting mad, okay?



Originally posted by [email protected]
Yes, philosophy is very methaphysical, the question is: Is that a good thing?
Huh? How did this discussion become Ethics? Did I blink?


Leo

If there is something that we think we can know, philosophy is most definetly unable to help us. We think that we can know what water is made up of, we do scientific research, we learn what water is made up of and there: we have theoretical knowledge, the reason behind theoretical science. After that point we can advance practical science, find a way to put that theoretical knowledge in use. This development of the method of aquiring material knowledge, science, kills philosophy.
Bull::shit. :lol:

You don&#39;t comprehend philosophy, that&#39;s why. Where do you get your cabbage, Leo? From the supermarket. So, you think that butterflies are beautiful and must be protected. Do you know what ruins cabbages? Caterpillars. So, ask the farmers of cabbages why they don&#39;t agree with you. In fact, they hate you.

na na na na na



I didn&#39;t give the gambling example actually,
My apologies.


Philosophy is not dangerous or harmful when you know what it is,
That&#39;s why I advise that you stay away from philosophy. Because it is dangerous for you because you don&#39;t know it. No getting mad.


but if you actually take material decisions based on philosophy, or even influence someone to do that, you ruin the material conditions. Philosophy is quite similar to watching tv all day, watching porn, gossiping about celebrities etc. Both don&#39;t achieve anything materially, both are some forms of drugs, intended to take the person from the material conditions of the world.
crap, crap, crap. Theorizing is part of philosophy.


I would prefer philosophy to tv, but that&#39;s just my choice of drug, objectively they are the same. As for eating it is pretty obvious why it is not only a better thing to do, but a necessary thing. We would die if we did not eat&#33; Socializing and drinking, they are usually related, are also much better. Human relationships, sharing common feelings, those develop one more than anything. As for reading, I admit that if you want to understand what those famous philosophers say, you will need to read a dictionary, but other than that, all philosophy takes is thinking and believing.
My question to you is, why can&#39;t philosophy be part of your intellectual life alongside your practical life? No time? Busy with porn and gossip? Yes, thinking and believing are necessary evils of the waking life.

But, go right ahead with your naivetè, Leo. Keep in mind that concepts of truth and reality (heh, redundant) gets its punch from philosophers. Let&#39;s all be naive about what makes an information stronger and more effective than others. Let&#39;s live in the world of Naives. Philosophy is like a pandora&#39;s box. Blame the Hellinistics. We can&#39;t go back to where we once belong. But, as you say, if we ignore it, it will go away. So, ignore it.

Oh, I got one for you, Leo: In the grave, there&#39;s no philosophy.

[rouchambeau]

The, uh, middle step of your argument is missing. You don&#39;t seem to explain how we directly relate to playing cards.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis:


Theorizing is part of philosophy.

True, but, as I have shown you several times, the result is always nonsense.

It seems you have learnt nothing from Wittgenstein....

[Leo]

Chrysalis;


You&#39;re still not getting my point. Sure. Science said it is "true", and we have, since the time of bla bla bla, been taking it for granted that that particular information and such likes constitute knowledge.


To continue......we just took it for granted that that&#39;s knowledge. Later evaluation and philosophizing of &#39;What is knowledge&#39; approved that that is knowledge. Sure. But, everything we know gets under the philosophical radar. What you&#39;ve been saying is this: "science said that it is true that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, because science said it is true, then that is knowledge."

Where did you get the "therefore"? Where did you deduce the therefore? From the fact that science said so. Is this a valid argument?

Science did not say it is true by itself, science is not a person to be able to say anything. Neither is it a self-conscious idea ( :D :lol: ). We did it, we said that it is true, we investigated, we experimented and we proved that it was true. Everything else about what makes water is bullshit after that point. The therefore is we investigating it, we proving it. That&#39;s not only a valid arguement, but it&#39;s the only valid arguement.


Are you comprehending me, Leo? Okay. No getting mad.


Now, I want you to read my post in slow motion. No getting mad, okay?

Oh, no why should I get mad? But please, don&#39;t get mad yourself either.


Huh? How did this discussion become Ethics? Did I blink?

I did not mean in the ethical sense, I think you know it quite well, are you trying to change the subject? If you did not undertand my point, what I ment was this: methaphysics never gives any material results, it never brings us anywhere.


You don&#39;t comprehend philosophy, that&#39;s why. Where do you get your cabbage, Leo? From the supermarket. So, you think that butterflies are beautiful and must be protected. Do you know what ruins cabbages? Caterpillars. So, ask the farmers of cabbages why they don&#39;t agree with you. In fact, they hate you.

Now that was a senseless arguement&#33; I would be the one, as a materialist to think that butterflies should not be protected because caterpillars make the life of farmers very hard and you would be the one, as an idealist, to think that butterflies are beutiful and harmless. (Except you don&#39;t so I can say that you are not just a philosopher babbling all day long about ideas etc.) Differently from idealists, I pay attention to what happens around me.


That&#39;s why I advise that you stay away from philosophy. Because it is dangerous for you because you don&#39;t know it. No getting mad.

Yeah, but I do understand what philosophy is. Believe me or not but I was as drunk with philosophy (specificly dialectics) as you are right now, thinking that I knew this fantastic language common people couldn&#39;t speak, therefore thinking that I was infact superior to them etc. I hope someday you will realize what philosophy is and manage to sober up. But be carefull, there is a pretty nasty hangover period.


crap, crap, crap. Theorizing is part of philosophy.

You gotta do better than that if you want to rebuttle that arguement Chrysalis.


My question to you is, why can&#39;t philosophy be part of your intellectual life alongside your practical life? No time? Busy with porn and gossip? Yes, thinking and believing are necessary evils of the waking life.

Thinking is truly necessary to realize, yes, yet thinking of philosophical thoughts are harmless but wasteful. Believing, well, you will never wake up if you believe. It is the worst of all opiums.

Philosophy can&#39;t be a part of my intellectual life, I reserved all my thoughts to the material conditions of the world, what to do about them, how I can contribute to the sollution of problems. I am busy, yes, I am busy with the revolution.

And if I somehow see the post-revolutionary world, I will be busy with enjoying it, enjoying nature, enjoying equality who knows, maybe enjoying a family... enjoying life.


Keep in mind that concepts of truth and reality (heh, redundant) gets its punch from philosophers.

and religious leaders, and politicians, and capitalists etc. etc. Yes, ruling class is trying really hard to keep the truth hidden and I make no expection when I denounce them. No getting mad right?


But, go right ahead with your naivetè, Leo... Let&#39;s all be naive about what makes an information stronger and more effective than others. Let&#39;s live in the world of Naives.

Yes, maybe I am a naivete, compared to &#39;enlightened&#39; philosopher, maybe I am naive to think that material is important, the reality, the suffering, the real problems are important. Maybe a worker is naive to think how he is going to feed his family instead of philosophical thoughts. But actually, the &#39;enlightened&#39; philosophers are blind to reality and truth. I would prefer to be naive instead of blind.


Philosophy is like a pandora&#39;s box. Blame the Hellinistics. We can&#39;t go back to where we once belong. But, as you say, if we ignore it, it will go away. So, ignore it.

Can you blame Galileo for imperialism? If he didn&#39;t say that world was round, Coulomb would&#39;ve never gotten to Americas. I don&#39;t know if the Hellinistics intended it to be used the way it is used right now. If they did I would blame them too&#33; But it doesn&#39;t take the blame from the philosophers responsible. And no, it won&#39;t go away but eventually humans will stop believing it.


In the grave, there&#39;s no philosophy.

In the grave, there will be nothing left from me. That would be my end. No more feeling, thinking, admiring, hoping, thinking. The fact that I will go into the grave gives my life a value today and it is the price I will pay for that value I enjoy. Philosophy is not something I would feel any sorrow for the fact that I will lose. I will be no more in the grave. Nevertheless, as for my atoms, their adventure will continue, always...

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 04:20 AM


It seems you have learnt nothing from Wittgenstein....
Tough shit, Rosa. I like you, Rosa. So, let&#39;s take it to the next level: I love you, Rosa. And love hurts. Yes, it does. All you need is love. I&#39;m done trying to makes sense with you. I&#39;m done trying to be sane with you. So here goes:

Your bullshit up your ass is worth five bullshits in the minds of society. So, keep it shoved, girlfriend. We don&#39;t need to litter society even more.

Let&#39;s do a little experiment, you and I. Tell me as accurate as you can what you&#39;re wearing right now. All the way down to your underwear. Trust me, this is productive. Just tell me the make and color of your clothes, Rosa. Include what countries they&#39;re made from. And I will tell you my answer next time.



Leo Uilleann
:lol: I&#39;m not even angry, Leo. I&#39;m having so much fun. You haven&#39;t seen me angry. Have your way with me and you&#39;ll see. Like, Rosa, there&#39;s just no reasoning with you. But, I keep coming back because this is fun. I get to talk to you.


P.S. In time I will be back to my normal self and be able to write posts that aren&#39;t..... fun. But right now, I just want to write what I want to write. Warnings be damned.

[Leo]

I&#39;m not even angry, Leo. I&#39;m having so much fun. You haven&#39;t seen me angry. Have your way with me and you&#39;ll see.

But, I wasn&#39;t angry at all&#33;&#33;&#33; :o Why should I be angry? I did manage to get angry in this site while talking to cappies <_< or even some Leninists :rolleyes: but about philosophy, no way&#33; :) :D :lol: . Did I do something to make you angry?


Like, Rosa, there&#39;s just no reasoning with you. But, I keep coming back because this is fun. I get to talk to you.

Well try me if it is fun. :) :D :lol:

[Chrysalis]

No, you dimwit. You said for me not to get angry in your posts. So, I responded back, I&#39;m not angry. :rolleyes:


But please, don&#39;t get mad yourself either.

No, you aren&#39;t or haven&#39;t said anything that can cause anger or stress. You are a fun poster that&#39;s why I took the time again to post here. I like "abusing" you. It&#39;s the girl thing.

[Leo]

You said for me not to get angry in your posts. So, I responded back, I&#39;m not angry.

Good&#33; Then why don&#39;t you respond to the post itself? :) :D :lol:

[Chrysalis]

Hey, you&#39;re fast to respond. I was editing my post.

I&#39;m no longer discussing philosophy with you. It&#39;s futile. But now, I want to socialize with you, Leo. :wub:

Tell me your deepest desire, Leo.

[Leo]

Hey, you&#39;re fast to respond. I was editing my post.

It&#39;s a rather depressing morning and I&#39;ve got nothing better to do...


No, you aren&#39;t or haven&#39;t said anything that can cause anger or stress.

Neither did you in your previous post. :)


I&#39;m no longer discussing philosophy with you. It&#39;s futile. But now, I want to socialize with you, Leo.


You are a fun poster that&#39;s why I took the time again to post here. I like "abusing" you. It&#39;s the girl thing.

Oh my... :blush: :lol:


Tell me your deepest desire, Leo.

I already did comrade... But I can tell it again: Revolution

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis, I take it from this you have either lost it, or you have given up serious thought:


Your bullshit up your ass is worth five bullshits in the minds of society. So, keep it shoved, girlfriend. We don&#39;t need to litter society even more.

Is this what philosophical &#39;theory&#39; does to the brain?

I suspect so.


Tell me as accurate as you can what you&#39;re wearing right now. All the way down to your underwear. Trust me, this is productive. Just tell me the make and color of your clothes, Rosa. Include what countries they&#39;re made from. And I will tell you my answer next time.

Nothing, I always post in the nude.

As I said, you have learnt nothing from either Frege or Wittgenstein, and your recent posts suggest I should begin to fear for your sanity.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+May 21 2006, 06:31 PM--> (Leo Uilleann &#064; May 21 2006, 06:31 PM)
I already did comrade... But I can tell it again: Revolution[/b]
Perfekt&#33;&#33; :D




Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)Chrysalis, I take it from this you have either lost it, or you have given up serious thought.[/b]

[email protected]
your recent posts suggest I should begin to fear for your sanity.

Rosa
I always post in the nude.


:lol: :lol: Oh, the irony&#33; First, Rosa, do not accuse me of what I just said what I&#39;ve been doing: I stop trying to make sense with you. Second, obviously your fingers are much faster than your brain. You say you fear for my sanity, yet here your are confessing you post here at revleft in the nude.

Anyway, just what I thought. You&#39;ve done the "little experiment". Just as I predicted you would say. The moment I ask you that question, you started thinking of clever ways to answer.

Rosa, unfortunately, I do find your understanding of many philosophical notions and terms so crude. Your essays are crude. I would not bother to discuss an important philosopher like Wittgenstein with you. And since this thread is not about Wittgenstein, then that&#39;s another reason why I would not talk about it now. But if you do want to discuss philosophy, and I believe you have a Phd, and been debating the issues for twenty years now, I suggest two possible good places for you.

ephilosopher.com has some good people on Wittgenstein. Go there and discuss with them. I think the mods there have advanced degrees in philosophy and they sure can handle your issues.

philosophyforums, I think, has some really good Hegelians. Discuss with them about dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis:


First, Rosa, do not accuse me of what I just said what I&#39;ve been doing [eh??]: I stop trying to make sense with you.

I thought so; you are losing it....


Second, obviously your fingers are much faster than your brain.

At least I use mine.


Just as I predicted you would say. The moment I ask you that question, you started thinking of clever ways to answer.

Wrong, I told you the truth for once.


[b]Rosa, unfortunately, I do find your understanding of many philosophical notions and terms so crude. Your essays are crude.

Translation from Chrysalis-speak into English: &#39;I prefer sloppy thought to careful thought.&#39;


I would not bother to discuss an important philosopher like Wittgenstein with you.

I wonder why....?


I suggest two possible good places for you.

ephilosopher.com has some good people on Wittgenstein. Go there and discuss with them. I think the mods there have advanced degrees in philosophy and they sure can handle your issues.

philosophyforums, I think, has some really good Hegelians. Discuss with them about dialectics.

Too crude; no thanks....