Jump to: Board index
December 11th, 2011, 10:50 pm
December 11th, 2011, 10:45 pm
August 30th, 2011, 10:41 pm
August 28th, 2011, 11:27 pm
August 28th, 2011, 11:21 pm
June 16th, 2011, 8:16 pm
Creativesoul wrote:This topic is meant to elucidate upon the central role that the 'concepts' of trust and truth have in everything known/believed. The scarequotes indicate my reluctance to call either a man-made concept. My reason(s) for this is(are) simple.
1. Thought/belief formation presupposes truth/reality correspondence.
One cannot think about that(whatever "that" may be), without first believing that that exists; one must believe that that is there(wherever "there" is). This presupposes the employment/recognition of spatiotemporal distinction between that and the rest of the world(universe). All of this presupposes trusting our sensory perception and unknowingly(at first) holding that our thought/belief corresponds(matches up) to the universe and/or it's contents.
June 16th, 2011, 8:14 pm
June 9th, 2011, 10:37 pm
June 9th, 2011, 10:31 pm
Pljames wrote::?: In todays society how can philosophy be applied? What does the sentence means "Philosophy has been bastardsized"? While trying to understand (what is and why) it seems people get complexed ideas on what they perceive is right (in there eyes). Would one think if any thought being philosophy can have more than one doubt on any answer it would become more complex?
Is there a simple question that demands a simple answer without a argument on presentation of the question?
If language does play a major role in how to ask or answer the question which would not lead to a argument relative to it, what would that language be? Simple and understood question with a relative answer that is not complex? pljames
May 29th, 2011, 11:39 pm
Kevinandrew wrote:Can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't consider the universe to be a living entity?
May 29th, 2011, 11:36 pm
Xris wrote:A contentiuos view but worth the debate.It must be accepted that you can not go from a forward direction to reverse without stopping. If we have a train of several tons moving at top speed along a track, will a fly impacting on that train stop it for a minute second? The fly although mashed to pieces still maintains its mass but has to stop before it can go into reverse , the direction of the train. If the fly had to stop surely that infers the train stopped.