Philosophy! Who's philosophy?
Sir Frederick
>
> As an uneducated middle-aged man, who does not wish to insult
> anyone, who gets through life, by making personal decisions on
> what I think is "right".
> My interest in reading this NG is why you discuss these problems.
>
> Do we have free will? 1. Yes 2. No
> Is there a god? 1. Yes 2. Don't know 3. No
> Is it "right" to kill? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes
>
> I am not looking for answers to these questions. I already know :)
> I would like to understand, why you need to ask these questions,
> when you "know" there are no answers.
> Is this all just a game to flex mental muscles (like chess)? or
> Do you believe that something useful does come from it?
>
> Please keep any replies "simple", like me.
>
> GAJ
No.
--
Q852913745
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Well as your initials are the same as mine I think I will reply.
There are a lot of people who don't know the answers, but believe there is
more, more to life, more to death, more.....
This is a very natural thing, .
Human beings have been asking
questions for thousands of years.
It is hard to be a human,
a strange mixture of animal, wild instinctual drives, habits, hereditary
mixes,
emotions,feelings,
and yet we have these extraordinary
intellects, the only living creature which definitely does,
this something which says
WHY?
philosophy is the closest thing that I know of to answer this question.
Best wishes
Gea
"Remember Your Humanity Forget the Rest"
Bertrand Russell
classicallib
Attempting to see how humans create their sensibilities, morals, ethics,
etc.
Q852913745 <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:...
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> > As an uneducated middle-aged man, who does not wish to insult
> > anyone, who gets through life, by making personal decisions on
> > what I think is "right".
> > My interest in reading this NG is why you discuss these problems.
> >
> > Do we have free will? 1. Yes 2. No
> > Is there a god? 1. Yes 2. Don't know 3. No
> > Is it "right" to kill? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes
> >
> > I am not looking for answers to these questions. I already know :)
> > I would like to understand, why you need to ask these questions,
> > when you "know" there are no answers.
> > Is this all just a game to flex mental muscles (like chess)? or
> > Do you believe that something useful does come from it?
> >
> > Please keep any replies "simple", like me.
> >
> > GAJ
>
Immortalist
> I am not looking for answers to these questions. I already know :)
Miller
is the question one is always asking themselves: "why don't that other guy
agree with me?". Now, things like tie color preferences or where you like
to eat out are hardly important enough to bother arguing about. But the BIG
questions, like:"Why am I here?" and "Is there a God?"--those are worth
discussing.
As you say yourself, you KNOW what the answers are. Most people think they
do. The question is, if we are all pretty much the same type of being, why
in the hell do we have such contrasting views on such basic, important
questions like God, free will and whatever happened to Demi Moore?
So we have to have a technique, a method, a distraction, to try to explain
it all. In newsgroups like these, you will not find out why people believe
things, only how they will argue that they are right and you are wrong.
Philosophy has been tied up with this sort of things for ages. A waste of
time? (since you already "know" what is right)-- you decide.
Scott
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
classicallib
If all reckon that people should always concur with their opinions, then if
one said 'I hate the disabled; exterminate them.', would people
automatically agree with that?
If so, then why not?
Miller <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:uoh5pd5...@corp.supernews.com...
Beowulf
Your instincts are right on the money-it's mostly just empty verbal
calisthenics and big egos.
Beowulf
grey
>My interest in reading this NG is why you discuss these problems.
>
>Do we have free will? 1. Yes 2. No
>Is there a god? 1. Yes 2. Don't know 3. No
>Is it "right" to kill? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes
>
>I am not looking for answers to these questions. I already know :)
>I would like to understand, why you need to ask these questions,
>when you "know" there are no answers.
Well, the problem, in large measure, is that each person is born OK,
but then imposes many concepts on their own experience, coming to
believe those made-up concepts real. The world then seems stocked with
all kinds of stuff that one has to struggle to understand. Philosophy,
in my opinion, is all about gradually healing the self-created wound
inside that seems to separate one from the world--there are no
answers, because each person creates their own problems actively and
subjectively, so what one is really struggling with is made-up beliefs
that seems real (eg, god). Gradually, one closes the self-created
wound by learning to stop stocking the world with artificial concepts
and then believing them real. And that's the path of philosophy.
---------------------------
A truly cool book:
The World Is Already Yours
Conscious living in the real world
www.alreadyyours.com (sample chapter, etc...)
alan jones
Hi Gaj I don't know if you'll ever really find answers to those three
questions, let alone simple ones. As to why we continue to explore
those questions [not to mentions the other topics of Perception,
Self and Logic], I'd say there isn't a single simple reason.
Speaking for myself, there seem many facets to the practice and
discourse of philosophy. Philosophy is both an history of thought,
and a form of words we are nourished by. Philosophy is both the
question and the answer.
Philosophy is language exploring the limits of language. It is thinking
about thinking. To some it can seem, and perhaps is, a luxury; as you
say, a form of mental exercise, but to others its an attitude we take
to the question.
Here's a few abstracts as they've occurred to me.
== Philosophy of Thinking ==
Philosophy on one level, has us connecting with way of other people's
minds, trying to assimilate a mode of thought, a way of thinking. looking
at the scrutiny with which another is able to examine a single powerful
idea. Even before we absorb what they say, most of us want to at
least feel we can follow the thoughts of a great mind. This is perhaps
the most insignificant reason to pursue philosophy.
A fashion for thought. A learnt form we exchange without appreciating
the significance of an example, which says be critical with your own
thoughts.
In another sense our pursuit of those same basic questions connects us
to great minds and their times. Those great works are benchmarks, not
just of individual thought but of the societies from which those thoughts
sprang.
Our relationship to the same question also says something about our
growth or lack of. To see the profound answers of a bygone age is
to see our own intellectual stagnation, and the stunted answers we
content ourselves with, or else the comfort that means the great
majority are not driven to seek answers. The ability to occupy our
every waking moment, would seem to come at a cost.
For all our scientific knowledge, our connection to the metaphysical
qualitative nature of human existence hasn't improved. [If it can't be
bought, then it has no value.]
Those simple and reoccurring questions are a measure of capacity to
think critically.
== Philosophy of Suffering ==
Questions of Morality, it seems to be are driven by acts or histories
of immorality. Put another way they are very often a minority view of
history and suffering.
Man ask what of is place in society, in the world, in the cosmos. He
looks for [or to create] significance. When we ask 'Do we have free will',
we are also asking a question of duty. [A muted intellectual challenge to
authority?].
These questions have at their centre a dissatisfaction with society, a
desire for better answers, or else they seek to justify the plight of man
with a body of thought that appeases the mind of the question.
Very often in this mode, we'll arrive at a form of words that either
condemn or justify the status quo. A form of words that says either
'we all ways have and always will', or a form of words that give an
intellectual base for saying 'we are better than this'.
== Philosophy of necessity ==
Philosophy is driven by society. It asks the same question against the
backdrop of history. Questions of Freewill or determinism, even as it
looks to define an absolute, are also asking which can we afford?
Questions on the existence of God, are in a sense a quest for a higher
authority, beyond the failings of man. There's a realisation that as a
society we are dependent upon [there being a] God, as a precept to
civilised values. Philosophy in that context concerns itself with
defining the relevance of God to the age.
An eternal quest to place God, [the provider of all answers, the focal
point of power, the ultimate arbiter, the collective will of the people],
at the centre of society.
To that end there will always be a place for definitions / debates that
places God at our centre.
=== Philosophy of Certainty ==
Humanity is dependent on positive psychology, indeed negative
psychology, in the wrong hands, has the potential to be as lethal as any
man made weapon. The songs we hear, the stories we read, the
philosophies we subscribe to are important, necessary adjuncts for an
organism that needs stability, or the mind, which fundamentally craves
certainty.
The fundamental difference between man and all other creatures is
language. Language and the ability to ask questions, allows language to
challenge certainty.
No other species has the capacity to create self doubt, to create their own
instability. Language exposes the connection between mind and body.
In a sense philosophy realises that dependency of the mind on Culture
[or language] and provides culture that marshals our thoughts. Satisfying
the fundamental questions that any thoughtful person ask as a result of
language.
When philosophy explores the nature of God, or the basis of perception,
it provides ways for the mind to build bridges between an innate need for
certainty and language which act psychologically to provide that certainty.
One might say philosophy provides belief structures, ways of quelling
personal anxiety. A kind of feed back between body and mind, between
psychology and culture.
=======
IM sure there are other abstractions one could make for the general forms
that Philosophy takes, but I'd say at its heart, its driven by our capacity
to ask questions.
Q852913745
>puzzled the smartest human minds for millenia?
Doesn't everyone?
Wouldn't you have an answer to each question?
If you ask anyone one of these questions
and they will have an answer.
They might not agree but to a question
that has no definite answer, any answers
are valid.
That's just my opinion, my answer.
GAJ
Q852913745
>
>philosophy is the closest thing that I know of to answer this question.
>
>Best wishes
>Gea
Surely (any) answer to "WHY?" is a valid answer. As there are an infinite
number
andy-k
forthcoming death.
I don't know if I existed in some disembodied form before I was born, or if
I will continue to exist in some disembodied form after my death.
So how should I use this allocation of time? What should I be doing while I
am passing through this place?
The answer surely depends on questions like the ones you cite. Maybe there
are no answers, but maybe there are, so why should I stop searching for them
on the off chance that there are none? What better way is there to spend my
allotted time? Its harmless, and furthermore, I find it enjoyable.
========================================
ANTISPAM:
This E-mail address is used for outgoing mail only.
All incoming mail is automatically deleted at the server.
========================================
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Q852913745
>
>Attempting to see how humans create their sensibilities, morals, ethics,
>etc.
This is what I don't understand, "why" people
keep "attempting" to answer questions which they know, have no definite
answers.
Does philosophy carry any weight if all it's
answers are based on "opinions"?
GAJ
Q852913745
>things, only how they will argue that they are right and you are wrong.
>Philosophy has been tied up with this sort of things for ages. A waste of
>time? (since you already "know" what is right)-- you decide.
Exactly, you are argueing what you
"beieve" to be true, everyone is argueing
about what they "believe".
But belief isn't fact is it? All of these
questions "can" only be answered by what you believe.
Q852913745
>I have a span of time allotted to me -- the period between my birth and my
>forthcoming death.
>
>I don't know if I existed in some disembodied form before I was born, or if
>I will continue to exist in some disembodied form after my death.
>
>So how should I use this allocation of time? What should I be doing while I
>am passing through this place?
>
>The answer surely depends on questions like the ones you cite. Maybe there
>are no answers, but maybe there are, so why should I stop searching for them
>on the off chance that there are none? What better way is there to spend my
>allotted time? Its harmless, and furthermore, I find it enjoyable.
That's what I was getting at, you find it
enjoyable, there is nothing wrong with that,
but do you "believe" that there is a single
answer to each of these "big questions".
Don't we feel justified in giving our opinion
because we know there is no set answer?
Aren't they "big questions" because there
is no single answer to each.
zobicus
> My interest in reading this NG is why you discuss these problems.
> Do you believe that something useful does come from it?
Partially a game, but with a benefit of improved debating skills and
understanding of logic.
Many useful things come from it besides what I mentioned above:
New sources of philosophy: authors, website references, etc.
Ability to "test" ones opinion on various philosophical matters
Chance to debate and discuss with individuals of above-average I.Q.
Opportunity to ask for help and review for students
Group analysis of philosophy sources
p.s. Don't ever think you've stopped learning. We are all students of
life.
Paul Bassa
addressing, and seems to have tapped straight in to the anxieties of people
who spend their time philosphising, judging by the responses. The others
(free will, god, right) are valid examples, but it's worth keeping in mind
that different people think about different topics for many different
reasons. The interesting bit is that you seem to think that nobody other
than 'philosophers' thinks about these and other questions, whereas I think
it's more likely that we all sometimes ask 'but why?' in the same way we
used to do as children. It's part of the process of learning about ourselves
and our world in order to exercise greater control over our destiny:
sometimes we just believe and act, at other times we doubt and need to think
before acting. And then perhaps we sometimes wonder about our process of
thinking .... Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Paul.
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Chad L
answers.
coincidentally, the answers are 2, 2, and 3.
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
andy-k
>
> That's what I was getting at, you find it
> enjoyable, there is nothing wrong with that,
> but do you "believe" that there is a single
> answer to each of these "big questions".
I don't know whether or not there's a single answer, but why should that
stop me from searching for whatever answers there might be?
> Don't we feel justified in giving our opinion
> because we know there is no set answer?
I present my opinions so that they may be scrutinised in public debate, and
invalid opinions weeded out and dispensed with. If we don't exposed our
opinions to this sort of scrutiny then we may be entertaining ideas that
just don't hold water, and we may never know it.
> Aren't they "big questions" because there
> is no single answer to each.
No -- they are big questions because they have a bearing on how we should
live our lives.
nick
GAJ,
I will propose, for simplicity, that there are two ways of thinking
(the extremes; or course there are shades of grey.)
One way says: I know the answer.
The other way says: I know the answer right now, but maybe the answer
depends on who I am right now. I will keep asking questions, because
tomorrow I may be a different person.
If you are a middle-aged man, have you never learned that what you
"knew" 10 years before was not quite right? I think you have.
Philosophy, science, spirituality, are all about this.
They are about hope.
-nick
casey
Mostly because some people enjoy the mental stimulation.
Free will is an issue when deciding to punish someone.
God is an issue for some people who need comfort.
The "right" to kill is also a practical question.
-- John
classicallib
existence?
In my mind, philosophy is (to a great extent) an extension of such an
intrinsic trait.
Q852913745 <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918145514...@mb-mi.aol.com...
casey
Philosophy doesn't provide answers it provides ideas.
And they should be based on objective facts not opinions.
The practical outcome for me was learning that there
is no _reason_ to believe in God or Free Will.
This means I don't waste time bowing to nothing
or believing that some nitwit has been chosen by
God to tell me what to do or blaming people for
their actions when they clearly have a maladaptive
brain.
Thinking is no substitute for a scientific experiment
but all scientific theories are "made up" to start with.
We all have ideas but most accept them without
question. A philosopher will be questioned and his
reasoning evaluated by others.
-- John
Douglas
even existence itself. By questioning these things like "are we ever really
free" and "is there a god" we better understand our own existence, and we
come closer to truth. We want answers to questions that wont be answered in
my lifetime, but asking them is in our nature. You say there are no
answers, but how do you know if you don't propose the question? I see your
point that it is futile to ask these questions, I often see that point too,
but don't you find it interesting that with all our knowledge, we really
know nothing about some of the most basic of things like reality and
existence?
To answer your questions (even though you said not to):
Do we have free will? We like to think we do, but when we look at it from
another perspective, we simply don't know. So we question. Skepticism
leads to truth.
Is there a god? Probably not. There is no evidence to say he does exist.
And if he did he probably doesnt want to be worshiped.
Is it right to kill? Sometimes. If someone breaks into your home,
absolutely!
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Douglas
understand the concepts. Go to your bookstore and buy a book about the
basics of philosophy. Then read more. Maybe even take some classes at your
local university. I promise you won't find a more interesting topic. It
questions everything and will give you something to contemplate when bored.
"Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Q852913745
>than 'philosophers' thinks about these and other questions, whereas I think
>it's more likely that we all sometimes ask 'but why?' in the same way we
>used to do as children. It's part of the process of learning about ourselves
>and our world in order to exercise greater control over our destiny:
>sometimes we just believe and act, at other times we doubt and need to think
>before acting. And then perhaps we sometimes wonder about our process of
>thinking .... Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
>Paul.
I think most people ask these questions
but realise the answer is a personal choice.
I have no problem with discussion at all,
but surely that's all it is.
It has no effect on the world does it?
>Your key question ("why you need to ask these questions") is the one worth
>addressing, and seems to have tapped straight in to the anxieties of people
>who spend their time philosphising, judging by the responses.
Do some people "need" to believe in philosophy
as others need to believe in a religion?
Q852913745
>answers.
>
>
>coincidentally, the answers are 2, 2, and 3.
(that's just my opinion, for what it's worth) :)
GAJ
Q852913745
>I see your point that it is futile to ask these questions,
>I often see that point too, but don't you
>find it interesting that with all our knowledge, we really
>know nothing about some of the most basic of things
>like reality and existence?
Yes I do find it "interesting" like a hobby, nothing more.
>Do we have free will? We like to think we do, but when we look at it from
>another perspective, we simply don't know. So we question. >Skepticism leads
to truth.
It hasn't done yet, has it?
>Is there a god? Probably not. There is no evidence to say he does exist.
That's strange, I've talked to religious people. They tell me that
if you look at everything around you, it is all evidence that
there is a God.
>And if he did he probably doesnt want to be worshiped.
>Is it right to kill? Sometimes. If someone breaks into your home,
>absolutely!
That seems to make sense to me (so you must be right)
but someone could make me see things differently
(so then you must be wrong)
Q852913745
>I will propose, for simplicity, that there are two ways of thinking
>(the extremes; or course there are shades of grey.)
>
>One way says: I know the answer.
>
>The other way says: I know the answer right now, but maybe the answer
>depends on who I am right now. I will keep asking questions, because
>tomorrow I may be a different person.
>
>If you are a middle-aged man, have you never learned that what you
>"knew" 10 years before was not quite right? I think you have.
>
>Philosophy, science, spirituality, are all about this.
>They are about hope.
>
>-nick
>
but then dropped it in favour of "better" one?
Q852913745
>question. A philosopher will be questioned and his
>reasoning evaluated by others.
>
>-- John
What happens when conflicting ideas
carry equal weight?
Q852913745
>invalid opinions weeded out and dispensed with. If we don't exposed our
>opinions to this sort of scrutiny then we may be entertaining ideas that
>just don't hold water, and we may never know it.
The "truth" doesn't always shine through.
I'm sure every day people develop a faith
in God, while at the same time others
lose their faith. They both saw the "truth"
GAJ
andy-k
>
> The "truth" doesn't always shine through.
> I'm sure every day people develop a faith
> in God, while at the same time others
> lose their faith. They both saw the "truth"
Before we start talking about "truth", it would be useful to have an agreed
definition of the word.
GeneIn
"Miller" <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in
message news:uoh5pd5...@corp.supernews.com...
> I think one of the great driving forces behind
pursuits such as philosophy
> is the question one is always asking themselves:
"why don't that other guy
> agree with me?". Now, things like tie color
preferences or where you like
> to eat out are hardly important enough to bother
arguing about. But the BIG
> questions, like:"Why am I here?" and "Is there a
God?"--those are worth
> discussing.
>
> As you say yourself, you KNOW what the answers
are. Most people think they
> do. The question is, if we are all pretty much
the same type of being, why
> in the hell do we have such contrasting views on
such basic, important
> questions like God, free will and whatever
happened to Demi Moore?
>
> So we have to have a technique, a method, a
distraction, to try to explain
> it all. In newsgroups like these, you will not
find out why people believe
> things, only how they will argue that they are
right and you are wrong.
> Philosophy has been tied up with this sort of
things for ages. A waste of
> time? (since you already "know" what is right)--
you decide.
epistemology is a branch of philosophy that seeks
to resolve basic questions through the use of
logic....and so a "criteria of truth" was
developed over the philosophical years....a
sampler of what not to consider when searching for
truth would be:...."tradition" cannot be used as a
test of truth since many traditions may repeat
something that was false to begin with...."time"
or something that withstands the test of time
cannot be used since many errors have withstood
the test of time....hunches, revelations, majority
rule...all for various reasons cannot be
used.....so what can?..."authority" begins to
approach what we may use but it must be applied
with caution...since at times two authorities may
differ...."the pragmatic criterion of truth is in
the same league as "authority" and that too is to
be used with caution.....we are now getting closer
to what can be used:...... "coherence" as a
criterion of truth:......a person arranges all
facts so that they will be in proper relationship
to one another *consistently* and *cohesively* as
parts of a whole, with all facts explained and
fitted into this whole as a relevant
part....*that* explanation fulfills the
requirements of coherence and the outcome may be
consider true.....or as close to truth that is
allowed mankind...
*BUT* the most valuable lesson that i was taught
when seeking a truth is to: "test beliefs by the
evidence, showing a willingness to revise these
beliefs as the evidence changes, never claiming
finality for beliefs, but recognizing that the
probabilities are sometimes so overwhelming that
we can really count on some important
truths".......and the logical/reasonable man never
forgets that perhaps he is wrong and the other
fellow may be right.
[this was taken from some notes i made many years
ago when attending a philosophy class, i find it
valuable to reread it from time to time....
g.
> Scott
>
> "Q852913745" <q8529...@aol.com> wrote in
message
>
news:20020918051529...@mb-fd.aol.com..
.
> > As an uneducated middle-aged man, who does not
wish to insult
> > anyone, who gets through life, by making
personal decisions on
> > what I think is "right".
> > My interest in reading this NG is why you
discuss these problems.
> >
> > Do we have free will? 1. Yes 2. No
> > Is there a god? 1. Yes 2. Don't
know 3. No
> > Is it "right" to kill? 1. Yes 2. No
3. Sometimes
> >
> > I am not looking for answers to these
questions. I already know :)
> > I would like to understand, why you need to
GeneIn
.
an example may be of value here.....who determines
they are of equal weight?
Immortalist
split up the load man!
>
nick
Wait 10 years.
;-)
-nick
Mr Bob
> Do we have free will? 1. Yes 2. No
"We" can not choose what we want, but some of us can choose between doing
what one wants and what some external code/regulation requires one to do.
> Is there a god? 1. Yes 2. Don't know 3. No
"A" god? Just one? If we suppose that god is a far more superior/developed
being than we are, should we not suppose that there are far more gods than
there are of us?
> Is it "right" to kill? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes
Is it "left" to kill?
Q852913745
>>I'm sure every day people develop a faith
>>in God, while at the same time others
>>lose their faith. They both saw the "truth"
>>
>>GAJ
>>
>definition of the word.
For questions of faith or belief.
I used "truth" to be an answer we believe to be true.
A believes "we have free will"
B believes we do not
They both believe they know the "truth"
After talking to other people of what they believe
Now A believes "we do not have free will"
and B believes we do
They both believe they know the "truth"
One of them already knew the "truth" but was persuaded away from it.
>>>I present my opinions so that they may be scrutinised in public debate, and
>>>invalid opinions weeded out and dispensed with. If we don't exposed our
>>>opinions to this sort of scrutiny then we may be entertaining ideas that
>>>just don't hold water, and we may never know it.
Your opinion may already be right.
Sometimes you have to have faith in yourself.
GAJ
grey
<douglas...@i-55.com> wrote:
>You can be uneducated and still read philosophy.
Rather depends on *how* uneducated, doesn't it? *smile*
>You just have to
>understand the concepts. Go to your bookstore and buy a book about the
>basics of philosophy. Then read more. Maybe even take some classes at your
>local university. I promise you won't find a more interesting topic. It
>questions everything and will give you something to contemplate when bored.
I think it's doubtful that the original poster will--he seems fairly
closed to the topic, dismissing posts as "philosophy talk". Doesn't
sound too promising for what you're suggesting. I think I'll go back
to reading my Epictetus...
---------------------------
A truly cool book:
The World Is Already Yours
Conscious living in the real world
www.alreadyyours.com (sample chapter, etc...)
Chad L
> >Unanswerable questions counteract the blinding effects of unquestionable
> >answers.
> >
> Hmm "philosophy talk"
How so?
> >
> >coincidentally, the answers are 2, 2, and 3.
> I think you will find you're wrong
> (that's just my opinion, for what it's worth) :)
> GAJ
As long as our answers remain open to question, that's fine by me. As long
as we don't look the other way, when evidence for a different answer arises,
then hurrah.
andy-k
> >
> >Before we start talking about "truth", it would be useful to have an
> >agreed definition of the word.
>
> For questions of faith or belief.
> I used "truth" to be an answer we believe to be true.
"It's true if we believe it to be true" leaves no room for incorrect
beliefs. When people believed the sun to go around the earth, did that make
it true? If so, then truth is entirely subjective with no objective aspect
to it at all.
> A believes "we have free will"
> B believes we do not
> They both believe they know the "truth"
If they had any intellectual honesty they'd admit that all they can say is
that they have a prejudice.
> After talking to other people of what they believe
>
> Now A believes "we do not have free will"
> and B believes we do
>
> They both believe they know the "truth"
> One of them already knew the "truth" but was persuaded away from it.
No ... they've just changed their prejudices.
> >>>I present my opinions so that they may be scrutinised in public debate,
> >>>and invalid opinions weeded out and dispensed with. If we don't exposed
our
> >>>opinions to this sort of scrutiny then we may be entertaining ideas
> >>>that just don't hold water, and we may never know it.
>
> Your opinion may already be right.
> Sometimes you have to have faith in yourself.
Faith is confidence in a belief. Confidence does not amount to certainty.
Q852913745
>>understand the concepts. Go to your bookstore and buy a book about the
>>basics of philosophy. Then read more. Maybe even take some classes at your
>>local university. I promise you won't find a more interesting topic. It
>>questions everything and will give you something to contemplate when bored.
>
>I think it's doubtful that the original poster will--he seems fairly
>closed to the topic, dismissing posts as "philosophy talk". Doesn't
>sound too promising for what you're suggesting. I think I'll go back
>to reading my Epictetus...
Closed to the topic?
The only reason I might dismiss a post is
if I haven't a clue what it means and if it
appears that technical phrases are being
used just to show the posters superiority.
I did ask that replies to me were kept simple
>I think I'll go back to reading my Epictetus...
A "friendly" example would be as to why you added
that last line to your post, maybe a
philisophical joke or maybe to demonstrate how far
you are up the "philisophical ladder"? I don't know.
I do appreciate that as one digs deeper
into a subject "technical phrases" become
necessary.
If this NG is for those that already have an amount
of knowledge on philosophy that's fine.
GAJ
Q852913745
>> carry equal weight?
>
>
>an example may be of value here.....who determines
>they are of equal weight?
Equal weight in the mind of the person
who has to choose.
I have a question
A says "This is the answer, here's the evidence"
B says "No this is the answer, here's the evidence"
They both sound correct.
zobicus
That is a temporary condition. One idea will always be superior. If
that is not the case then neither idea is strong enough and a new one
is needed.
zobicus
> >In newsgroups like these, you will not find out why people believe
> >things, only how they will argue that they are right and you are wrong.
> >Philosophy has been tied up with this sort of things for ages. A waste of
> >time? (since you already "know" what is right)-- you decide.
>
> "beieve" to be true, everyone is argueing
> about what they "believe".
> But belief isn't fact is it? All of these
> questions "can" only be answered by what you believe.
If belief can never be fact then there can never be fact. Think it over.
grey
>>>You just have to
>>>understand the concepts. Go to your bookstore and buy a book about the
>>>basics of philosophy. Then read more. Maybe even take some classes at your
>>>local university. I promise you won't find a more interesting topic. It
>>>questions everything and will give you something to contemplate when bored.
>>
>>I think it's doubtful that the original poster will--he seems fairly
>>closed to the topic, dismissing posts as "philosophy talk". Doesn't
>>sound too promising for what you're suggesting. I think I'll go back
>>to reading my Epictetus...
>
>Closed to the topic?
>
>The only reason I might dismiss a post is
>if I haven't a clue what it means and if it
>appears that technical phrases are being
>used just to show the posters superiority.
>I did ask that replies to me were kept simple
>
>>I think I'll go back to reading my Epictetus...
>
>A "friendly" example would be as to why you added
>that last line to your post, maybe a
>philisophical joke or maybe to demonstrate how far
>you are up the "philisophical ladder"? I don't know.
*smile* No, nothing like that...just happened to be reading Epictetus,
that's all.
>I do appreciate that as one digs deeper
>into a subject "technical phrases" become
>necessary.
>
>If this NG is for those that already have an amount
>of knowledge on philosophy that's fine.
No, it's really not--I was just reacting to the post where you
dismissed someone for using "philosophy talk".
>GAJ
zobicus
Discussion, reason, philosophy, ethics. There all related. These
concepts of intellect are what got us to this modern age. Are you
suggesting we abandon them now and just stagnate, or worse yet,
regress? They are needed now more than ever.
zobicus
> >I see your point that it is futile to ask these questions,
> >I often see that point too, but don't you
> >find it interesting that with all our knowledge, we really
> >know nothing about some of the most basic of things
> >like reality and existence?
>
> Yes I do find it "interesting" like a hobby, nothing more.
You will often find those with successful careers think of their job
as a "hobby", you use the word negatively. I see a hobby as something
one is passionate about.
>
> >Do we have free will? We like to think we do, but when we look at it from
> >another perspective, we simply don't know. So we question.
>Skepticism leads
> to truth.
>
> It hasn't done yet, has it?
Just off the top of my head, if there was no skepticism we might think
the earth was still flat...
>
> >Is there a god? Probably not. There is no evidence to say he does exist.
>
> That's strange, I've talked to religious people. They tell me that
> if you look at everything around you, it is all evidence that
> there is a God.
>
> >And if he did he probably doesnt want to be worshiped.
> >Is it right to kill? Sometimes. If someone breaks into your home,
> >absolutely!
>
> That seems to make sense to me (so you must be right)
> but someone could make me see things differently
> (so then you must be wrong)
Its called being a windsock.
zobicus
I'd be more concerned with asking the right questions. If you know
what you are looking for, and what is important to you to discover,
the rest is easy.
Q852913745
>> >answers.
>> >
>> Hmm "philosophy talk"
>
>How so?
>
a science?
>
>> >
>> >coincidentally, the answers are 2, 2, and 3.
>> I think you will find you're wrong
>> (that's just my opinion, for what it's worth) :)
>> GAJ
>
>As long as our answers remain open to question, that's fine by me. As long
>as we don't look the other way, when evidence for a different answer arises,
>then hurrah.
Many questions have no factual evidence,
what then? Do we rely on instinct?
I am just wondering whether philosophy actually ever gives any answers,
or is it another form of entertainment
Q852913745
>> >agreed definition of the word.
>>
>> For questions of faith or belief.
>> I used "truth" to be an answer we believe to be true.
>
>"It's true if we believe it to be true" leaves no room for incorrect
>beliefs. When people believed the sun to go around the earth, did that make
>it true? If so, then truth is entirely subjective with no objective aspect
>to it at all.
Surely a belief "is" true until it's proved
false. We can only go on the evidence,
and at the time the evidence said
"the sun does go around the earth"
until new evidence came along.
>If they had any intellectual honesty they'd admit that all they can say is
>that they have a prejudice.
The evidence available to them gives them
a belief
>> Your opinion may already be right.
>> Sometimes you have to have faith in yourself.
>
>Faith is confidence in a belief. Confidence does not amount to certainty
People are different
Aren't there degrees of faith going from a
"vague maybe" up to "certainty"?
Q852913745
>> >things, only how they will argue that they are right and you are wrong.
>> >Philosophy has been tied up with this sort of things for ages. A waste of
>> >time? (since you already "know" what is right)-- you decide.
>>
>> Exactly, you are argueing what you
>> "beieve" to be true, everyone is argueing
>> about what they "believe".
>> But belief isn't fact is it? All of these
>> questions "can" only be answered by what you believe.
>
>If belief can never be fact then there can never be fact. Think it over.
I think that's what I'm saying,
some questions have no factual answer,
therefore we can only rely on what we
believe to be true.
We may discuss and alter our belief
but they still remain belief, not fact
Q852913745
>> as others need to believe in a religion?
>
>Discussion, reason, philosophy, ethics. There all related. These
>concepts of intellect are what got us to this modern age.
How are people any different now than
they were a thousand years ago?
>Are you
>suggesting we abandon them now and just stagnate, or worse yet,
>regress? They are needed now more than ever.
>
How do you think philosophy affects the world?
Q852913745
>> but then dropped it in favour of "better" one?
>
>I'd be more concerned with asking the right questions. If you know
>what you are looking for, and what is important to you to discover,
>the rest is easy.
Are you sure the rest is easy?
Philosophy seems to like walking into a
maze, one question just leads on to the next.
Q852913745
>> but someone could make me see things differently
>> (so then you must be wrong)
>Its called being a windsock.
Is that good or bad?
GeneIn
.
....i have often come across a situation where two
well know philosophers contradict...as can happen,
but we as educated and hopefully intelligent
people will choose one since "evidence" of a
philosophical nature are not the same as two gold
ingots placed on a scale....philosophers are not
scientists they don't produce "evidence" only a
well crafted compelling argument....
g.
Q852913745
So! What's a good "simple" book to start with?
GAJ
grey
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>WHY?
>
>philosophy is the closest thing that I know of to answer this question.
The very question is the problem. It's when you start imposing
concepts on your experience and then believing them real that you
start struggling with such questions--but one is really struggling
with is a created mental framework. That's all.
Q852913745
>> >> carry equal weight?
>> >
>> >an example may be of value here.....who
>determines
>> >they are of equal weight?
>>
>> Equal weight in the mind of the person
>> who has to choose.
>>
>> I have a question
>> A says "This is the answer, here's the evidence"
>> B says "No this is the answer, here's the
>evidence"
>> They both sound correct.
>
>....i have often come across a situation where two
>well know philosophers contradict...as can happen,
>but we as educated and hopefully intelligent
>people will choose one since "evidence" of a
>philosophical nature are not the same as two gold
>ingots placed on a scale....philosophers are not
>scientists they don't produce "evidence" only a
>well crafted compelling argument....
>
>g.
Choose, how do we choose between
equal arguments?
grey
>I suppose I should try harder to understand
>
>So! What's a good "simple" book to start with?
May I suggest Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"? Fun, good reading,
and powerful. Here's the amazon.com link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671739166
Listed for as little as $1.95 used at amazon.
Personally, I'm not that far off from your point of view that these
questions don't have answers, by the way. As far as I am concerned,
these questions are all self-generated by various beliefs about the
world (such as there is a god), and it's really that belief framework
that the questioner is questioning.
zobicus
Bad. A windsock is a device to indicate which way the wind is blowing. A
person can be called a windsock when they change opinions and beliefs as
often as the wind changes direction. Personally I feel it is possible to
hone one's beliefs and attitudes to be more distinct, and true to one's
self, as time goes on.
zobicus
Philosophy like anything requires focus. It is easy to get lost in the
unanswerable questions. But it is possible to pull useful ideas from even
those topics. For example, a debate on "Is there a universal moral code?"
might not lead to a solid answer but it has the potential to positively
impact people's behavior in terms of increasing their moral standards. It
is often helpful to apply logic to the seemingly illogical. It is quite
difficult to explain. I shall think more on this subject.
zobicus
I agree. But the fact is (no pun intended) we ~need~ these things called
facts. So, in the spirit of compromise, many define a fact as a belief that
is either shared by a vast majority or has a substantial amount of evidence
that supports it. It is easy to freeze up and doubt everything, and it is
even sometimes a useful pursuit. But in daily life, at the workplace, with
the family, etc. we need functional philosophy, which is the type I prefer.
andy-k
> >>
> >> For questions of faith or belief.
> >> I used "truth" to be an answer we believe to be true.
> >
> >"It's true if we believe it to be true" leaves no room for incorrect
> >beliefs. When people believed the sun to go around the earth, did that
> >make it true? If so, then truth is entirely subjective with no objective
> >aspect to it at all.
>
> Surely a belief "is" true until it's proved
> false. We can only go on the evidence,
> and at the time the evidence said
> "the sun does go around the earth"
> until new evidence came along.
If there is an objective world beyond the believer then his beliefs may be
incorrect -- this is a philosophical position called Realism. If there is no
objective world beyond the believer then there are only his beliefs, so I'm
not sure how meaningful the correct/incorrect distinction is -- this is a
philosophical position called Solipsism. There's no way of telling which of
these positions is correct, but most people reject Solipsism. If you want to
know why this is so then I suggest you post the question, but then you'd be
doing philosophy.
> >If they had any intellectual honesty they'd admit that all they can say
> >is that they have a prejudice.
>
> The evidence available to them gives them a belief
Where there is evidence that permits the creation of hypotheses that make
testable predictions we can do science. That means that if the predictions
are not invalidated by testing, the hypothesis is elevated to the status of
a theory -- i.e. our confidence in it is enhanced. Note that a correct
hypothesis can never be proven to be correct, because although all tests to
date may have failed to invalidate it, the next test might just do that.
This means that science can only prove an incorrect hypothesis to be
incorrect, because it only takes one failed prediction to invalidate the
hypothesis.
Where we cannot do science our confidence in the hypothesis cannot be
enhanced empirically. However, some hypotheses are more reasonable than
others. The use of reasoned argument in the absence of evidence allows
confidence to be enhanced rationally. The elimination of unreasonable
hypotheses in the absence of evidence is more in the line of philosophy as I
understand the term.
> >> Your opinion may already be right.
> >> Sometimes you have to have faith in yourself.
> >
> >Faith is confidence in a belief. Confidence does not amount to certainty
>
> People are different
> Aren't there degrees of faith going from a
> "vague maybe" up to "certainty"?
Only statements such as "a triangle has three sides" admit of certainty.
These are called tautologies, and they give us no new information since the
attribute was already part of the definition.
Chad L
> >> >Unanswerable questions counteract the blinding effects of
unquestionable
> >> >answers.
> >> >
> >> Hmm "philosophy talk"
> >
> >How so?
> >
> Sorry, blinded by science, is philosophy
> a science?
Science is an increasingly large branch of philosophy. Both are concerned
with the quest for truth and knowledge.
> >
> >> >
> >> >coincidentally, the answers are 2, 2, and 3.
> >> I think you will find you're wrong
> >> (that's just my opinion, for what it's worth) :)
> >> GAJ
> >
> >As long as our answers remain open to question, that's fine by me. As
long
> >as we don't look the other way, when evidence for a different answer
arises,
> >then hurrah.
>
> Many questions have no factual evidence,
> what then? Do we rely on instinct?
I do not understand how a question can or cannot have factual evidence. Do
you mean answers (or "propositions") rather than questions? If so, then
yes, "instinct" (or better said - "intuition") has foundation in our
judgements.
>
> I am just wondering whether philosophy actually ever gives any answers,
> or is it another form of entertainment
Yes, it gives many answers. Such answers often lead to a diverse and large
amount of enjoyable consequences, which is why most people study philosophy
(and logic too). I think another poster said in similar words: Truth is
hard to come buy, and often impossible to reach. However, knowledge, i.e.,
"justified belief", is not impossible to reach. It is intuitively accepted
that the better we can support our knowledge, the closer that our knowledge
will parrallel the Truth. Would you agree that some beliefs are more
justfied than others? If you would not agree, and think that one belief is
just as useful as any old belief, then philosophy is definitely not your cup
of tea. Some people have been conditioned to believe that truth and
knowledge is very important and enjoyable in their lives and for the lives
of those around them; those people I would consider to be
'philosophy-minded'. And the more you study it, the more you find how
practical it can be.
cheers.
"It's a simple trick to leave a place as ignorant as you entered."
Chad L
because, 'why else would someone spend so much time defending their
philosophy ABOUT philosophy on a philosophy message board'?
Essentially he seems to have a conclusion, and effectively (judging by the
amount of responses) reasons to support his conclusion in a very logical
fashion. His conclusion seems to be that 'philosophy is probably a waste of
time'. His supporting evidence is: (1) Few if any objective truths come out
of it; and (2) nobody seems to agree on much; and (3) people can live full
and happy lives without it. (I suspect he'd agree to the last one, though
it is only an assertion on my part).
I would say that his is a wonderful philosophical argument. I can't imagine
that a person who would take the time to construct such an argument here,
would not construct similar rational arguments about topics other than
philosophy itself (e.g., god, free-will, morality, etc. etc.). Surely he
must have opinions regarding these subjects, about which he has expressed at
some point in his life; only now he questions what the point or meaning of
all this is. A reasonable question, for which there seems to be no
objective ultimate Truth. However, some arguments are better than others,
and if he did not know this, then he would not be here. Welcome, Q.
"zobicus" <zo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2Dsi9.2927$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Immortalist
"grey" <n...@available.com> wrote in message
news:ajdkou80b5ei6hg70...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Sep 2002 20:30:00 GMT, q8529...@aol.com (Q852913745) wrote:
>
> >I suppose I should try harder to understand
> >
> >So! What's a good "simple" book to start with?
>
> May I suggest Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"? Fun, good reading,
> and powerful. Here's the amazon.com link:
>
i found chapter 4 free do you know where more can be found online? (this
book should be free!)
http://bdsweb.tripod.com/en/107.htm
GeneIn
Q852913745
>> >what you are looking for, and what is important to you to discover,
>> >the rest is easy.
>>
>> Are you sure the rest is easy?
>> Philosophy seems to like walking into a
>> maze, one question just leads on to the next.
>
>Philosophy like anything requires focus. It is easy to get lost in the
>unanswerable questions. But it is possible to pull useful ideas from even
>those topics. For example, a debate on "Is there a universal moral code?"
>might not lead to a solid answer but it has the potential to positively
>impact people's behavior in terms of increasing their moral standards. It
>is often helpful to apply logic to the seemingly illogical. It is quite
>difficult to explain. I shall think more on this subject.
This is exactly what I want to understand.
"Philosophy has the potential to positively
impact people's behavior in terms of increasing
their moral standards", but at the end of the day,
does it affect their moral standards?
How does a philosophical debate on morals
have any effect on moral standards outside
the group of philosophers?
Q852913745
>because, 'why else would someone spend so much time defending their
>philosophy ABOUT philosophy on a philosophy message board'?
>
>Essentially he seems to have a conclusion, and effectively (judging by the
>amount of responses) reasons to support his conclusion in a very logical
>fashion. His conclusion seems to be that 'philosophy is probably a waste of
>time'. His supporting evidence is: (1) Few if any objective truths come out
>of it; and (2) nobody seems to agree on much; and (3) people can live full
>and happy lives without it. (I suspect he'd agree to the last one, though
>it is only an assertion on my part).
>
>I would say that his is a wonderful philosophical argument. I can't imagine
>that a person who would take the time to construct such an argument here,
>would not construct similar rational arguments about topics other than
>philosophy itself (e.g., god, free-will, morality, etc. etc.). Surely he
>must have opinions regarding these subjects, about which he has expressed at
>some point in his life; only now he questions what the point or meaning of
>all this is. A reasonable question, for which there seems to be no
>objective ultimate Truth. However, some arguments are better than others,
>and if he did not know this, then he would not be here. Welcome, Q.
>
or a smack in the face, but thanks anyway.
I would not say philosophy is a waste of time,
just a harmless distraction from real life.
No offence intended.
I'm afraid I just can't see the importance of it.
The replies to my questions have certainly given
me something to think about. Well, those that I
could understand anyway!
Thanks to all that replied.
GAJ
Beowulf
>This is exactly what I want to understand.
>"Philosophy has the potential to positively
>impact people's behavior in terms of increasing
>their moral standards", but at the end of the day,
>does it affect their moral standards?
In a word;No.
A functional moral parent has much more impact on our adult moral
values (for better or worse) then any philosopher will ever have.
Later on in life these values may be modified, somewhat, but primarily
by being made to conform to the empirical evidence of our own life
rather than by any appeal to an abstract understanding of right and
wrong.
Beowulf
Tro
news:bderou8ipu3r1ge3p...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Sep 2002 12:08:23 GMT, q8529...@aol.com (Q852913745) wrote:
>
> In a word;No.
> A functional moral parent has much more impact on our adult moral
> values (for better or worse) then any philosopher will ever have.
> Beowulf
>
So, if studying philosophy improves people's moral standards, then we should
make philosophy one of the primary subjects in schools (such as math,
science, or english), so that we would all be more or less philosophers.
Tro
Chad L
As long as you're not afraid to give rational support for your arguments and
opinions and assertions; and as long as you believe that some ways of
behaving (thinking included) are better than others, then I have no qualms
with you *saying* that philosophy is just a harmless distraction from real
life, because people (as you have pointed out yourself) tend to say one
thing and do another.
cheers.
Q852913745
>opinions and assertions; and as long as you believe that some ways of
>behaving (thinking included) are better than others, then I have no qualms
>with you *saying* that philosophy is just a harmless distraction from real
>life, because people (as you have pointed out yourself) tend to say one
>thing and do another.
>
>cheers.
I will try to make this my last post to this NG.
I have just read the thread
"Why do people, in general, never reflect?"
This must be one of the most patronizing
pieces of drivel I have read in a long time.
Example :
"I used to live near a working class
area, and so many people there lived such
awful, blank lives full of just waiting for things
to change while screaming at each other. And
then they'd die."
I cannot comprehend how anyone who "thinks"
they study philosophy could be so shallow.
Do "philosophers" really think that they are so
superior to other "people"?
While you discuss "why", other "people" are just
living life, and for the most part "enjoying it".
Finally, a well kept secret, this may come as a shock
"People DO reflect, but don't think they have to tell the
world, because they KNOW it changes nothing"
Sorry, I have no rational support for this argument
GAJ (Enough philosophy talk, I'll leave you to it)
Beowulf
wrote:
I didn't say that philosophy does or does not improve ones moral
standards. Only that for most folks morality, or lack of it, has been
primarily the function of early childhood experiences in the home.
Given that much of our sense of right and wrong is learned very early
I doubt that a speculative pursuit such as philosophy would be very
helpful. It hard to imagine what a first grade class in philosophy
would look like. The uncertainty of philosophy would confuse more than
clarify children's moral understanding I would think.
While a high school philosophy class would make sense I don't think it
would have much impact on the individual's underlying moral sense one
way or the other.
Beowulf
Chad L
> >As long as you're not afraid to give rational support for your arguments
and
> >opinions and assertions; and as long as you believe that some ways of
> >behaving (thinking included) are better than others, then I have no
qualms
> >with you *saying* that philosophy is just a harmless distraction from
real
> >life, because people (as you have pointed out yourself) tend to say one
> >thing and do another.
> >
> >cheers.
>
> I will try to make this my last post to this NG.
> I have just read the thread
> "Why do people, in general, never reflect?"
> This must be one of the most patronizing
> pieces of drivel I have read in a long time.
Sometimes it helps if you read someone's "drivel" in what I call a "mind's
voice" that is not of your own defensive posture (or at least thats been
true for my personal experience). For example, try to read someone else's
words as if your favorite comdian ,or talk show host, or Barney the Purple
Dinosaur ,wrote them and was narrating to you.
>
> Example :
> "I used to live near a working class
> area, and so many people there lived such
> awful, blank lives full of just waiting for things
> to change while screaming at each other. And
> then they'd die."
lol. see, in this case, I would imagine Jon Stewart (he's one of my favorite
comedians) narrating those words. lol. it's obviously not very charitable,
but no harm done, I think.
>
> I cannot comprehend how anyone who "thinks"
> they study philosophy could be so shallow.
> Do "philosophers" really think that they are so
> superior to other "people"?
I hope not, but I'm sure there are a few that do. Probably give others a
bad name. It happens with all groups.
>
> While you discuss "why", other "people" are just
> living life, and for the most part "enjoying it".
> Finally, a well kept secret, this may come as a shock
> "People DO reflect, but don't think they have to tell the
> world, because they KNOW it changes nothing"
I know people reflect, but I don't know how they "know" that it changes
nothing. Maybe that's the problem? Why should reflection change nothing?
>
> Sorry, I have no rational support for this argument
well, not all dialogues must be arguments (in my opinion).
>
> GAJ (Enough philosophy talk, I'll leave you to it)
peace.
Tro
> I will try to make this my last post to this NG.
> I have just read the thread
> "Why do people, in general, never reflect?"
> This must be one of the most patronizing
> pieces of drivel I have read in a long time.
<snip>
It is, of course, your choice to leave or not, but I'd say you're making
your decision rather quickly. After all, it is only one topic in this entire
NG. I was just wondering...What brought you here in the first place? I
believe that's what you're getting. I could be wrong of course.
Tro