First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Can you define the cosmology/philosophy you operate under?
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mxdan wrote:
To be honest I'm pretty unread in Kant but I'll add it to my reading list. But I think there is a practicality to it (He probably addresses) that I'd like to know -- That is, people interpret the world in any number of ways, and they react to those (for lack of a better word) energies and put out effort in the world in different ways (Socially, chemically [movement], etc.). The way we physiologically react to stimuli and envelope it is on some level energy dynamics, no?


People can interpret the world in any number of ways, but it is the question of learning to understand which of them are valid and which of them are not. Your argument relies on a coincidence in the word "energy"--as such, to me, it seems highly suspect. I probably won't be able to convince you of this, but there is a difference between the scientific definition of energy to which the conservation of energy relates and what you are talking about. And I would like to emphasize that it is an important difference. One relates to the physical world and has an exact, mathematical definition. The other does not.

However, your opinion is your own.
5177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / NJ
Offline
Posted 11/15/17 , edited 11/15/17
Wittgenstein is my bae

206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/17 , edited 11/15/17
There are too many things here in order to answer it properly. That's why I'll just give you my two cents about it.
Like mittemeyer said in the third post, I think a lot of people nowadays tend toward science to answer questions (i.e. naturalists, physicalists etc). However, I don't think that most of them do this because they thought about it a lot but because that is the image we often get nowadays: "science can actually prove stuff, while other things like religion are fairy tales which you have to blindly believe". I don't blame people for thinking this, because I can see why they would think this, given what they hear every day. However, I think this is ultimately false.

In my opinion, you will need knowledge about science, faith, religion (among other things) to consciously lead a good life, at least what I think a good life is. Science can explain some things, especially physical things, very well, but it cannot explain others, such as conceptual or moral questions. Philosophy is, at least in principle, a very good way to get the other things but ultimately, the foundation of everything, be it science or philosophy, will be what you believe. You have to believe in something for anything to work.
I do think that what we can understand, think about and know is limited. It seems hard for us to think about something that might be illogical, but it seems impossible to show that something illogical doesn't exist, without presupposing that things need to be logical. I think it is very possible that what we can know is just a tiny bit of what there actually is. We should not get ahead of ourselves and claim we know a lot.

Stay humble and try your best. In a lot of cases you will know what is really right. If you do, do it.



Still, something about Kant which I found was a bit imprecise, but since we are not here to discuss Kant I'll put it in a spoiler.

923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/17 , edited 11/15/17


Regarding Kant, I took some time out of my schedule today to go over what exactly was Kant's position on metaphysics. I consulted several reference works, which I will refer to and quote. I acknowledge that metaphysics is still around as a philosophical discipline, but in a radically different form, in no small part due to to Kant himself.

Kant's main attack against the metaphysics of his time stems from the way plausible metaphysical propositions, which had preceded him, were often ungrounded in experience. His Transcendental method can be either interpreted, problematically, as exclusively "an analysis of the conditions for scientific or ordinary knowledge," or else as "a novel kind of metaphysical knowledge about all possible objects of experience." (Pippin 1982) One is an epistemological reading of Kant, the other a metaphysical one. It is remarked that,


There are, though, distinct dangers in taking either view to extremes. One such liability is obvious in those interpretations which construe Kant's doctrines of phenomenal knowledge as a phenomenalism, or which attribute to him the view that 'to be' is, in some sense, "to be experienced." This makes Kant a metaphysician of sorts, but quite a bad one. (It is also a characterization of his position that most infuriated him. See chapter 7.) Another problem in opting for one alternative to the exclusion of the other is clearly evident in recent works which attempt a wholly epistemological interpretation, which see the Critique as demonstrating the limits on any concept of empirical knowledge that we could make intelligible to ourselves, and which encourage us to jettison the 'metaphysics of transcendental idealism.'" (Pippin 1982)


Hence, it is fair to describe Kant's Transcendental critique as a form of metaphysics, albeit radically defined from what it had been, so that "it should be not speculation about things transcending our sense experience, but 'a science of the limits of human reason.'" (Beiser 1992) In doing so, Kant transformed philosophy so that, where "philosophy before Kant concerned itself with the question 'How is metaphysics possible?' philosophy after Kant focused upon the question 'How is the critique of knowledge possible?'" (Beiser 1987)

Regarding what exactly Kant's attitude toward metaphysics was, it appears that Kant was quite infatuated with metaphysics in his early years, and had several changes of heart before rejecting in his mature thought the metaphysics that had heretofore preceded him. (Beiser 1992)

Beiser, Frederick C. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1987.
Beiser, Frederick C. "Kant's intellectual development: 1746-1781." From The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992.
Pippin, Robert B. Kant's Theory of Form. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1982.
206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/17 , edited 11/16/17



I can agree to most of that Thanks for taking the time to go through the sources and I'm happy we found a common ground
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/17 , edited 11/16/17


Yes, certainly.
1543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/17/17 , edited 11/18/17
I haven't studied philosophy enough to have a coherent "theory of everything," but I operate more-or-less under a 'natural rights' ethic. You know, each of us as individuals has an inherent right to protect our life & liberty, and to pursue happiness however we see fit so long as we don't affect others' ability to do the same.
In practice, that 'pursuit of happiness' part gets pretty complicated, and government exists largely to make sure we don't cause harm to each other in the course of it. That's what I think laws should primarily be about.

In contrast, the law does NOT exist to prevent things that I don't like. It bugs the shit out of me that people are assholes to each other. On a personal level, I do not approve of homosexuality or the concept of transgender individuals. I don't care much whether you agree with me or not, but I will say that laws don't exist to make what I consider an ideal world. They exist to prevent malicious or harmful behavior. None of the above count, and none of the above should be forbidden by law.

I also have a set of beliefs that guide my personal conduct, separate from what I believe constitutes lawful or unlawful behavior. First and most important: just because I am having a bad day does NOT give me the right to pass it on to those I come in contact with, whether I know them personally or not. Second, I do not have the right to be rude to employees just because they make a mistake or are unaware of a sale, rule, or what-have-you. Third, if I have the opportunity to make someone's day better, I have a responsibility to take it. Fourth, I am obligated to do my best in any activity I am paid for.

I'm sure there are others that are implicit in my behavior.

I don't always follow the things I wrote above.

I also have speculations about how government works and comes into being, and how the universe started, if you want to call those philosophy. It's more of an armchair philosophy, though, and not really useful for anything. Come to think of it, the first two paragraphs of this comment that could even generously be counted as 'real' philosophy.

@OP, what about you?
15700 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/17 , edited 11/17/17

foraslan wrote:

I haven't studied philosophy enough to have a coherent "theory of everything," but I operate more-or-less under a 'natural rights' ethic. You know, each of us as individuals has an inherent right to protect our life & liberty, and to pursue happiness however we see fit so long as we don't affect others' ability to do the same.
In practice, that 'pursuit of happiness' part gets pretty complicated, and government exists largely to make sure we don't cause harm to each other in the course of it. That's what I think laws should primarily be about.

In contrast, the law does NOT exist to prevent things that I don't like. It bugs the shit out of me that people are assholes to each other. On a personal level, I do not approve of homosexuality or the concept of transgender individuals. I don't care much whether you agree with me or not, but I will say that laws don't exist to make what I consider an ideal world. They exist to prevent malicious or harmful behavior. None of the above count, and none of the above should be forbidden by law.

I also have a set of beliefs that guide my personal conduct, separate from what I believe constitutes lawful or unlawful behavior. First and most important: just because I am having a bad day does NOT give me the right to pass it on to those I come in contact with, whether I know them personally or not. Second, I do not have the right to be rude to employees just because they make a mistake or are unaware of a sale, rule, or what-have-you. Third, if I have the opportunity to make someone's day better, I have a responsibility to take it. Fourth, I am obligated to do my best in any activity I am paid for.

I'm sure there are others that are implicit in my behavior.

I don't always follow the things I wrote above.

I also have speculations about how government works and comes into being, and how the universe started, if you want to call those philosophy. It's more of an armchair philosophy, though, and not really useful for anything. Come to think of it, the first two paragraphs of this comment that could even generously be counted as 'real' philosophy.

@OP, what about you?


I'm working on something tbh but it seems like a lot of it is more based in the things I don't subscribe to and I would probably be making fun of a lot of things. It's gonna be awhile till I post it and when I do it'll probably be really long. Look forward to something tiers above all the trite and boring shit everyone else has posted in this thread.
1543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/17/17 , edited 11/18/17

Potentsaliva wrote:
I'm working on something tbh but it seems like a lot of it is more based in the things I don't subscribe to and I would probably be making fun of a lot of things. It's gonna be awhile till I post it and when I do it'll probably be really long. Look forward to something tiers above all the trite and boring shit everyone else has posted in this thread.


I await your return.
8637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / a pop tart
Offline
Posted 11/17/17 , edited 11/18/17
Thigh Highs for the win.
601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 11/18/17 , edited 11/19/17
"Be like water" Bruce Lee.

569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Behind You With A...
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17
i always laugh at these "philosophical" questions- asking them is just as meaningless as asking what color sound is
601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17

SnipeStar wrote:

i always laugh at these "philosophical" questions- asking them is just as meaningless as asking what color sound is


What are you? Do you know what you really are? I'm sure you are not going to get this question right for maybe your whole lifetime since you don't ask questions. People that don't bother asking questions that will cause you to learn and expand choose to be ignorant.

I'm sure you only laugh at philosophy because you can't comprehend the deep ideas that come from it so you blow it off as nonsense.

923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17
I think it was G. E. Moore who advocated that philosophy should not refute the picture of the world we receive from common sense, and Wittgenstein who suggested that the object of philosophical inquiry should be to seek the end to the need for philosophical inquiry.
569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Behind You With A...
Offline
Posted 11/19/17 , edited 11/19/17

VegaStarX1 wrote:


SnipeStar wrote:

i always laugh at these "philosophical" questions- asking them is just as meaningless as asking what color sound is


What are you? Do you know what you really are? I'm sure you are not going to get this question right for maybe your whole lifetime since you don't ask questions.


correction- i don't ask meaningless questions in an attempt to make myself sound smarter than i am


People that don't bother asking questions that will cause you to learn and expand choose to be ignorant.
yeah you aren't "learning" or "expanding" by asking these fruitless questions


I'm sure you only laugh at philosophy because you can't comprehend the deep ideas that come from it so you blow it off as nonsense.

what i laugh at are condescending psuedo-intellectuals who think they sound smart by wasting time with meaningless questions
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.