What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

The Philosophy Thread

G

Guest

The problem with religion is not religion, but that there are so many bogus religions. They cause nothing but pain and violence and dogmatism.
Real religion is not based on blind faith in incomprehensible pointless rituals and tradition. It is based on science of identity. The real question is.. who are we? if we are simply machines that die and cease to be.. there is no point in preparing for death because then death is the end. There is no point in morals or caring for anything or anyone but ourselves and what we want to do. I believe that is why so many people today prefer to renounce belief in any higher power. It relieves them of the responsibility of making decision based on anything other than their own desires.
But there is a lot of evidence to prove that life does not end when our bodies die.
When you have a lucid dream, your eyes are closed. the brain has all but shutdown. the body is no longer percieving. who is percieving the dream?
Do you believe that you are your body?
 
Sardonic said:
i don't believe that.

the reason we don't know shit now is 'cuz we stopped evolving. look at history. everything hitherto has surpassed itself (we crawled from the ocean and so on). man still hasn't. mainly because of religion, i believe.

sardonic, i ask you what more is science than the observance of natural history?
 

Sardonic

Member
islandherbs said:
The problem with religion is not religion, but that there are so many bogus religions. They cause nothing but pain and violence and dogmatism.
Real religion is not based on blind faith in incomprehensible pointless rituals and tradition. It is based on science of identity. The real question is.. who are we? if we are simply machines that die and cease to be.. there is no point in preparing for death because then death is the end. There is no point in morals or caring for anything or anyone but ourselves and what we want to do. I believe that is why so many people today prefer to renounce belief in any higher power. It relieves them of the responsibility of making decision based on anything other than their own desires.
But there is a lot of evidence to prove that life does not end when our bodies die.
When you have a lucid dream, your eyes are closed. the brain has all but shutdown. the body is no longer percieving. who is percieving the dream?
Do you believe that you are your body?
lol.
you're so cynical.

with no god, i live my life following my dream. THAT is enough for me. Why do I need a god, a heaven, or to fear death?

the problem is, nobody dreams anymore.

ah this is boring.
 

FarmerJoe

Member
Religious people always have that "theres something bigger and better out there we just cant see" mindset.

Think for a second, just for a second there isn't.

Now you can begin to be philosophical.
 

Sardonic

Member
islandherbs said:
what happens to your dream when you die?
why do you fear death?
i do not fear death
what do you mean "what happens to [it]"?

What does that matter to me, the dead man?
 

guineapig

Active member
Veteran
Nooooo i am here to save our thread!!!!

a few categories of Western philosophy....

1) METAPHYSICS

This branch of philosophy deals with the question, "What is truly Real?" The word "truly" is very important, because we are trying to distinguish appearance from reality. The most fundamental question of this category might be "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Science gives us some interesting ideas here, including the Big Bang theory and Quantum theory.....

2) EPISTEMOLOGY

This branch of Western philosophy is all about issues of knowledge and truth. Epistemologists search for a theory of knowledge and how knowledge can be distinguished from opinions and falsehoods. What is knowledge and what is truth? This is an interesting field especially today due to the inflitration of media (TV, magazines, radio) and also the advent of post-modernism.....

3) ETHICS

Ethics or "moral philosophy" deals with questions, issues, and problems relating to moral value. What is the greatest good? What makes an action morally right? Are moral values objective? What is the good life? How should one live? These questions are quite interesting, especially for people who deal with the everyday realities of breaking laws which they consider morally unjust.....sound familiar anyone?

4) AESTHETICS

Aesthetics explores issues relating to beauty and art. Can we define what art actually is? What is beautiful, and why do we feel that way?

........
 

trouble

Well-known member
Veteran
White-collar crime is up, dog ownership is down, and sadly after only a few short years our history has made Desert Storm just another war fought by the parents of children who grew-up watching MTV. Elvis is dead, Zulu Teenagers are listening to The Back-Street Boy's and I dont feel so good myself.

If there really is a God how could he ever let The Back Street Boy's make an album?


I know, it's not to deep, however, I'm a very shallow person.










...
 
Last edited:
G

Guest

Synthesis

Synthesis

This is a quite 18th century synthesis of the fields of philosophy, but it is quite complete. I hope all people discussing religion here get rectum cancer.

Metafysical problems
Ontology
Ontology is the seeking of the priciples of the being as being eg. "What is being", "why is there something and not nothing", etc
Special metafysics
Examination of the different kinds of existing as a being.
Rational cosmology
Studies the base structure of the world/kosmos
Rational psychology
= philosophical antropology
Rational theology
Philosphical study of God, is not practicised anymore nowadays
Normative problems
Ethics
Normative study of actions and values. eg. The Good, The Plight, ...
Aesthetics
Study of beauty and the arts
Politics
Asks how society should be best organised.
Knowledge theory problems
Because of the rise of philosphy in de 6th century BC, questions arose that never had been asked before. Can we distiguish reality from some kind of virtual reality? How can we do this? How do we do it? This problematic arises as soon as man starts to question myths, magic and proverbs and starts looking for better ways of thinking, this is the epistemologic questioning, there are 2 categories:
Logics
Before Aristotle, the founder of logics, logics was the theory of the valuable argument, in our time the main occupation of logics is language theory en the study of mathematical reasoning = the deductive method. Apart from that there is also a movement that studies the reasoning of the exact sciences.
Epistemology
Studies what knowledge is and if it is possible to achieve knowledge



We could conclude Philosophy is the study of problems that have no scientific solution, the above summary is a state of the art in the 18th century, as you can see the field of philosphy has narrowed a lot.
 
Last edited:

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
Sardonic said:
it's for you to decide.

the problem with values being placed upon you -- as the case is with religion is that you end up with a bunch of chameleon sheep.

but jeez, do some reading.

it is boring for me to discuss subjects i've tackled long ago, over and over. I was more so hoping to find other people who have read philosophy, particularly topics covering existentialism, morals and so on --: the rest is a waste of a breath. It's like talking about how the sky is blue -- i know the ****ing sky is blue, i want to get planes in it now. ya dig?

Sard, you open a philosophy thread and begin with denouncing religion, fair enough, but you refuse to suggest a starting point. A central theme of philosophy is determining the better action, (what else is morals?), and therefore I asked the method that you use once "because I tell you to" is removed. (whether the teller is using might, trickery or bribery to support their position). I merely followed on from your lead. As you are clearly a Crowley fan I even engaged the discussion of the limits of the "law". I have read a few books in my time, though not as many as some others here, and if you engage in the discussion, or steer it, then you could have an entertaining thread. Merely saying that the central themes are off limits as they are beneath you, well, either proove it or suggest something yourself, but don't try to insult.
 

Sardonic

Member
GMT said:
Sard, you open a philosophy thread and begin with denouncing religion, fair enough, but you refuse to suggest a starting point. A central theme of philosophy is determining the better action, (what else is morals?), and therefore I asked the method that you use once "because I tell you to" is removed. (whether the teller is using might, trickery or bribery to support their position). I merely followed on from your lead. As you are clearly a Crowley fan I even engaged the discussion of the limits of the "law". I have read a few books in my time, though not as many as some others here, and if you engage in the discussion, or steer it, then you could have an entertaining thread. Merely saying that the central themes are off limits as they are beneath you, well, either proove it or suggest something yourself, but don't try to insult.
i am no Crowley fan, up until now i'd never heard of him.

i didnt say anything was 'beneath me'. i said it was boring; and especially boring to type out.

i'll admit, it's a bit of a contradiction to start a philosophy thread, shit on religion, and refuse not to dive too deep into it. but i've never been one to care about such things

I enjoy Nietzsche. There is no point in me talking about the same subjects that he did when I -- I don't want to say "subscribe to his doctrine", but in a way, it's like that.

anyway, i would like to talk about things such as the three metamorphoses - camel, lion, child. the concept of the superman. and so on and so forth, BUT, I can't, because none of you will know what the **** i'm taking about. :]

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA:
ftp://opensource.nchc.org.tw/gutenberg/etext99/spzar10.txt
 

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
You may be suprised.
Although it's better to discuss the issues rather than relying on what page its written on.
Lets discuss the concept of the "super". How would a super person, come to realise that they were super? Would that increase their freedom or their responsability? If you truely believe what you have professed to, that only the individual decides "should" for themselves, then you suggest that greater ability only demands greater imagination for that ability to be utilised to its potential I guess.
 

Sir D

Member
"If everything is relative, how would you assign value of action? ie what is good/bad?"
isn't there a level of common sense that should be applied to this as well?

"Super" If I understand correctly that last statement then I am thinking along the same lines. Isn't the "super" just a self reflection of a point of what people dream to accomplish. Like superman for instances hes the fastest, strongest, handsome super good doer yet a nerd as clark always reflecting the human side to which we can relate. Isnt superman just a projection of the imagination of which you speak? And if so then perhaps that could not be

"then you suggest that greater ability only demands greater imagination for that ability to be utilised to its potential I guess."

because the imagination takes us alot further then our abilitys could ever reach....No?

or is it just a matter of time before our abilitys catch up?
 

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
Hi Sir D,
By that line, I was attempting to find out whether Sard had any self imposed morality or whether he truly subscribed to the point of view that refused all "thou shall nots". The point of view that would allow murders to murder etc.
The "super" to which we refer is a translation from german, and not the hollywood type of super. More the state of being in which those whose mental awareness and abilitiles are greater than that of the average Joe. I was enquiring as to whether Sard felt that such a person had the same level of responsability, or a greater or no responsability. And in the case of the last option, would the utilisation of such a state of being, rely soley upon the ability to imagine ways of using it to one's own advantage.
 

Sardonic

Member
GMT said:
Hi Sir D,
By that line, I was attempting to find out whether Sard had any self imposed morality or whether he truly subscribed to the point of view that refused all "thou shall nots". The point of view that would allow murders to murder etc.
The "super" to which we refer is a translation from german, and not the hollywood type of super.
gmt, i didn't understand your first post nearly as much as this one. different strain :joint:?

GMT, what I want are creators of values. For instance, I love nature because of the deadly serpents, the rattle snakes and what have you that shake their tails and spew their venom with no shame --: BECAUSE it is their nature.

Indeed, we may come into conflicting natures -- the same way a lion and it's prey have, but that's another account on it's own. Do I make myself clear?

i'll respond the second half of your post in a bit
 
Last edited:

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
Sorry Sard, with you proffessing to have read so much more than the rest of us, I thought you may have come accross Crowley before, if you were familiar with his work, then my earlier post would have made far more sense to you. As you now see what I was getting at, and addressed it, kind of, I want to make my question clearer. When a Murderer murders, are you on the side of the murderer or the murdered? Do you think that the murderer has the right to murder because it is his will to murder? Does the will give rise to the right? Or are there some rules to be followed when creating values of ones own? Should the will be tempered at all?
 

Sardonic

Member
i never said i read more than anyone. If we're going to have a conversation, please read what I say carefully as to avoid throwing in assumptions or tainting my opinions with yours.

with that said, my previous post should have answered your recent one. who am i to judge the _nature_ of another man? it is all relative. however, it is still nature, and people are _not_ equal...a sheep and a wolf are not equal. HOWEVER, you are thinking of what i consider very small problems.

philosophy, economics and psychology go hand and hand. the problem of murderers, rapist, and the like can all be helped...alas, evil will still survive...but a new kind of evil. a superman must have a supervillian, no?

the reason i semi answer your posts are because of time. yknow, that ever fleeting hunk of goodness. on a complete side note, i was reading the other day about the relativity of time and chatting about it with a friend..anyway, did you know if you left the earth, traveled around it at light speed and came back a day later, it could be 1,000 years later on earth? pretty fun shit to think about, no? if you're as discerning as me, you've kept your eyes on alien words and the study of...with that said, most of the planets we've discovered have been really HUGE and really close to their sun, which makes them flyyyyyy around their sun extremely fast because of the gravitational pull. SO, in theory, if those UFOs that have visited (check out The Disclosure Project..i'm a skeptic, so i wouldn't recommend it if didn't hold truth) lived on one of these extremely hot planets, which they very well could (science shows that if our dna was closed at the end instead of open we could live in extremely hot temps)..it could have been yesterday that they first came here (to them).. anyway, something to ponder lol
 
Last edited:

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
Sard, you opened the thread, I mistakenly thought that you wished to discuss, sorry you don't have enough time.
 

Sardonic

Member
GMT said:
Sard, you opened the thread, I mistakenly thought that you wished to discuss, sorry you don't have enough time.
i JUST edited in and replied to that.

the beauty of the internet is I CAN come back and respond to things, where as in my real life things need attention immediately. Is that profound to you?

on the totem pole of importance, replying to this thread is very low, friend.
 
Top