I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Eduk
Posts: 2084
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Eduk » January 11th, 2018, 5:24 pm

If a universe exists but no one is around to value it does it have worth?
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
YoungZeno
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: January 8th, 2018, 11:44 pm

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by YoungZeno » January 18th, 2018, 3:50 pm

Eduk 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.
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 tbh

User avatar
YoungZeno
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: January 8th, 2018, 11:44 pm

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by YoungZeno » January 18th, 2018, 3:51 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 7:24 pm
Ahem: HAIR?
Yes.

Eduk
Posts: 2084
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Eduk » January 18th, 2018, 5:34 pm

lol only just noticed I've been writing hair :)
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1995
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Hereandnow » January 18th, 2018, 6:16 pm

I see Herr Eduk.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1995
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Hereandnow » 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?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2802
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Burning ghost » January 19th, 2018, 12:13 am

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?
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.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1995
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Hereandnow » January 19th, 2018, 12:31 am

No. It's all that it should be. what do you see?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2802
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Burning ghost » January 19th, 2018, 2:10 am

It's just that Plato was pretty much the ultimate idealist. I don't quite see how you describe Kant like this ...
Stepping into Kant's world, one realizes that becoming-in-the-world is the world-as-idea, that is, idealism.
I never new how interesting until Kant, because he showed me the exit door from mundane thinking about the world.
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."

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.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1995
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Hereandnow » January 19th, 2018, 11:30 am

Plato was not a Kantian idealist. Plato doesn't say when you leave the room and take your experience manufacturing equipment with you, the room "disappears", as Kant did (though, of course, infamously, there is some noumenal something, closer to Berkeleys God in the quad) For Plato, the stuff is still there but it is a lesser "share" of the real Real. This stuff of the world is only becoming, not Being. Turn away from this becoming world and behold your reason and its concepts (i.e., forms), then you behold the true Reality, though imperfectly, being a mere human. Now for Kant, this becoming world is the body of intuited sensation which is "blind" without concepts to give it form. Reason reaches out and particularizes the world of otherwise chaotic sensation. So you can see how the Parmenidian and Heraclitean worlds evolved: the former was Being, the idea, look at the flower that withers in time, but the idea of flower sustains. The latter "idea" is changingless, the former passing, in Heraclitean flux, changing, Becoming not Being. It's like Kant took this Platonic model and internalized it.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2802
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Burning ghost » January 19th, 2018, 11:45 am

The major difference between the two is Kant refuting the possible of knowing "noumenon" in the positive sense whilst Plato didn't. As far as I can tell that is it. So Plato is much more of the idealist than Kant.

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!)
AKA badgerjelly

Pages
Posts: 273
Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Pages » 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?

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?
Two possibilities exist... Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
- Arthur C. Clarke

Pages
Posts: 273
Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Pages » February 2nd, 2018, 11:45 am

By other philosophers I mean, old philosophers
Two possibilities exist... Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
- Arthur C. Clarke

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 335
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by SimpleGuy » February 2nd, 2018, 12:41 pm

Pages 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?
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 consequences
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.

Eduk
Posts: 2084
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy

Post by Eduk » February 2nd, 2018, 2:43 pm

The more one knows or searches, the more one realizes how little one knows.

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.
Unknown means unknown.

Post Reply