Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 897 matches
December 11th, 2011, 10:50 pm
I'm sure I don't agree. It's easy to use words like "love" and "wisdom" without defining what is actually meant. Plato wrote Socrates as a pest, someone who continually tried to use someone's words to trip them up, to make them seem silly...in a word, Socrates was (in large part)...
December 11th, 2011, 10:45 pm
"Presto" by Rush...
August 30th, 2011, 10:41 pm
(quote not shown) Pollock listened far too closely to Clement Greenberg, and slavishly (and dutifully) followed Greenberg's aesthetic advice right to its logical "dead end"--until Greenberg abandoned Pollock, and Pollock never found another successful, "mature" "style"....
August 28th, 2011, 11:27 pm
(quote not shown) Are you claiming that those who "say that the meaning of life is happiness", mean (by "happiness") "sensory pleasures"? Aristotle didn't agree. He believed that happiness was rare, and consisted of reflecting on one's life (near the end of one's life) ...
August 28th, 2011, 11:21 pm
Existence, "being", is hardly an "obligation". Survival of the fittest means that, for the species to become stronger, the less genetically adaptible to their environment will be (not to put too fine a point on it) eaten (by animals or microorganisms...whatever). You don't "...
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.
So, I cannot think of something, without also believeing that it exists?
So how do we differentiate between fiction and non-fiction?
June 16th, 2011, 8:14 pm
(quote not shown) I wonder how you would react if (God forbid) someone broke into your home with the intent of killing you, and anyone else who happened to be there. Me, personally, the question of whether I would "hate" such a person isn't really important. Ending that person's life, as q...
June 9th, 2011, 10:37 pm
(quote not shown) There is a difference between the subconscious and the unconscious. The subconscious is a postulate of Fruedian theory, while the unconscious is a well-established biological fact. Do you really mean the "sub"conscious? If so, we would first need to agree that the subcons...
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?
No. (I accept it as axiomatic that a counter-argument can always be made.)
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?
Yeah, until there is a good reason why we *should* consider the universe to be alive, ir's irrational to believe such a thing.
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.
I think observation of a fly vs. the windshield of my car (which has much less mass/intertia than a train) provides ample, empirical evidence that a train doesn't stop, or even slow down perceptibly, upon impacting a fly.