I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- YoungZeno
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: January 8th, 2018, 11:44 pm
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Indeed they are, the arrow one is cool because it makes you think about what movement is aswell and the continues now which never changes tbhEduk wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 4:21 pm Tortoise and hair doesn't need two subjects. Same theory works with one person walking up a path. He must pass half way and half of half way and so on infinitely.
As youngzeno says you have to question infinity. And you have to question if space can be divided. And you have to question if time is an instant ( in the case of the arrow paradox).
Either way I like the paradoxes, they are fun to think about.
- YoungZeno
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: January 8th, 2018, 11:44 pm
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
"I have no idea what you're talking about? I am guessing you've put the historical roles of Kant and Plato in reverse by accident? "
I only just noticed the question here. Plato and Kant reversed? What do you have in mind?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
I was asking if you wrote "Kant" where you meant to write "Plato" and "Plato" where you wrote "Kant"? Go back and look at what you wrote, if there is no mistake then we likely have some rather interesting disagreements about what it is Plato and Kant were doing/saying.Hereandnow wrote: ↑January 18th, 2018, 11:32 pm Burning Ghost:
"I have no idea what you're talking about? I am guessing you've put the historical roles of Kant and Plato in reverse by accident? "
I only just noticed the question here. Plato and Kant reversed? What do you have in mind?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Stepping into Kant's world, one realizes that becoming-in-the-world is the world-as-idea, that is, idealism.
Kant made strides to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, so he was very much involved with the mundane. Plato is renowned for being "other worldly" and often framed as a "mystic."I never new how interesting until Kant, because he showed me the exit door from mundane thinking about the world.
Husserl also points out that Kant never questioned the world as the world.
OF course to this day there is still much conflict and argumentation in this area both in terms of what Kant said, what Plato said, and irrespective of either of those people (although certainly they played a big part in the whole story to get to where we are today - wherever that is!?)
So, I am saying Plato was more of an idealist than Kant ever was, whilst you seem to be saying the opposite? If not then it doesn't matter.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Kant was working in response to Hume's skepticism ... anyway, not getting into an exchange of "he said ..."
I agree KANT is monumental! One helluva read (emphasis on HELL, because its certainly tries to make your brain explode!)
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
If nobody knows the actual aim of life's existence, why do we uphold the views of other philosophers?
Yes, some people are too lazy to think but, those people are not philosophers and I'd like to think most of the people in this forum are, more or less.
My point: As far as I'm concerned and as wide as I've read, no philosopher has solved any philosophical problem. Most either point out common sense or settle on a theory at best.
Most things I see in philosophical forums are reiterations, repetitions and quotations. Don't we have philosophers anymore?
Secondly,
Why philosophize at all? The more one knows or searches, the more one realizes how little one knows. People who actually philosophize would understand. Philosophers would be miserable people because they dig till they die, knowing fully well that they won't find answers but, still go ahead to think because they have trained their minds not to be able to think about anything else. Is it human nature to just create problems by any means?
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
First of all, after statistical physics this aim cannot be constant in time unless it's simply beeing exterminate. So the "goal" of life itself, has either to change or it's path dependent on the set of stochastic processes. The more interesting question is not the goal as a single state, but the existence of some kind of utility function, that contains for humans more than simple evolution. The philosophy then of the reason of life are the consequencesPages wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:41 am First of all,
If nobody knows the actual aim of life's existence, why do we uphold the views of other philosophers?
Yes, some people are too lazy to think but, those people are not philosophers and I'd like to think most of the people in this forum are, more or less.
My point: As far as I'm concerned and as wide as I've read, no philosopher has solved any philosophical problem. Most either point out common sense or settle on a theory at best.
Most things I see in philosophical forums are reiterations, repetitions and quotations. Don't we have philosophers anymore?
of such a utility function , which could include moral and would then have implications on ethics. This has to be seen in correspondence of the evolution of our scientific picture of this world.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Pages. That is the use of philosophy really. I mean you could treat philosophy as a pure and abstract thing which is entirely unfalsifiable and whittle away the hours, if you wish. But we all apply our philosophies to our everyday actions. Your example above is something many people on the forum fail to realise and they spend their life fruitlessly arguing irrelevance on this forum.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023