 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 392 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A rock is an organization. It is the sum of all its parts. Name me anything in the whole universe that is truly "by itself" Anything can be disaggregated. If I write you a letter, what is it? It is the ink, the paper, the letters, the language, the ideas, the date at the top, my signature. Each of those parts has its own rich history and identity behind it (which of course each of those could then be disaggregated into other parts). My signature is not the letter, the ink is not the letter, the ideas I write about are not the letter, but they when they are all organized into a certain form then it becomes the letter. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a rock is a smashing device |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cx ang glasse: but how do you know a particular thing is a rock? From its perceived qualities? Then you would be justified in calling something a rock even if it isn't and you've been fooled into thinking it's a rock. Let's say you encounter something that appears to be a rock, but is actually a shell containing surveillance equipment and circuitry. Furthermore, let's say you don't bust it open and find out that it's not a rock, since people are not in the habit of breaking apart rocks unless they are prisoners in a film from the 1940s. According to your standard, it is "true" that this is a rock because you perceive it to be a rock. Isn't that so? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well any book about history of philosophy. i actually kindof hate sophie's world |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You guys need more structuralism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
According to your standard, it is "true" that this is a rock because you perceive it to be a rock. Isn't that so? That's not what I am saying. Our perception is unreliable but we have other tools to observe with, and measure with, and so on. But I'm getting from you that even with all of our tools, and if every man, women, child and animal, including the most brilliant scientist with the most advanced equipment and the simplest ant just changing its direction to avoid running into it, all agreed that "yes, that right there is a rock," that we still couldn't detach ourselves enough from to know for sure. "Or is it all just an illusion? and I would say to you, perhaps." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I am saying though is that "green" cannot be truly green as we know it without us to observe it. Us observing it is one of the parts that make it green. Without us it is just a m/e event with the potential to be green, but your eyes and brain unlock it as so. So if our tree falls and no one was around was there a sound. Of course there was an event, and we can go in later and observe other effects of that event not related to hearing, but it is the hearing and the processing of that sonic event that makes it complete as what we would call a sound. The sonic event is a disaggregation of the sound because the sound requires more parts to be whole. Its needs the introduction of the listener. My main point is that neither one is more "real" than the other. The sound, the sonic event, and whatever other m/e events you break that down to are all just as real as one other. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well there are several questions arising from this post.. 1. How can we talk about something which noone has seen? In your example, let's say the surveillance equipment in the rock came there magically and no one had ever seen it, done it, or known it. Would it not be a rock if everyone had believed it to be so everytime they walked by it? In theory we can take any reasonably sized rock in existence and say the same thing. Even about the universe itself. The reality we see and interact with may have several dimensions and complications nobody on earth knows about, and we don't calculate those into our daily or scientific or philosophical meanderings either. We can never really truly know /everything/ about something. 2. You say 'what the rock is', and this whole problem of what something is or isn't is also troublematic. My earlier post was 100% based on perception, I believe we see things similar around nature, and those properties can be abstracted in the mind, like the color red, or the sensation of hardness. But seeing as the problem of seeing anything outside of our subjective perception is impossible right now, the act of looking at a rock will forever be a slave to the perception. You can study the rock and find out its component parts, you can compare it to other objects, but you will never see an essence of the rock. Even more so that essence might truly be something local to your consciousness. Without a nervous system you wouldn't feel it as hard, without an eye you wouldn't see it as red, round, without a hand you wouldn't feel it as heavy or light etc.. I do believe however that we can draw conclusions about the objective reality based on our perception. This is because science is based on observation and predictability of the things we sense, and really, everything we sense is everything that exists to us, so this method makes a lot of sense. Hm long post but I hope I didn't lose an important thought or point. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you guys ACTUALLY having a philosophical discussion in a thread called 'Philosophy'? that is like SUCH a cliché |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree a lot with this too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In fifth grade I raised my hand and asked the teacher "what if different people see colors differently, or hear sounds differently, how do I know that my brown is the same as your brown." He said, "well Jason that is called color blindness and we are going to talk about that next week." He either didn't understand what I was asking or didn't believe that a fifth grader was asking it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol well some people haven't thought about stuff like that yet, and don't associate it with the true problem it raises |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jeanna Licorice: "You guys need more structuralism." *pours bottle of lube on Adorno* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
AC/DC must be making trilobitillionz of money in royalties! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, I think we got it down pretty good. This is about the time the buddhist monks light up their lotus and start shooting spit balls at each other. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahahah, you know you're a nerd when that actually elicits a real life lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If perception is unreliable, how is it helpful to have instruments? We will still have unreliable perceptions of these instruments' readouts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's the difference between a rock and a boulder or pebbles or a mountain? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean its unreliable in terms of sailors mistaking a manatee for a mermaid or people thinking the house groaning is a ghost. The tools, instruments, and the collective observation of people is the checks and balance. We are rolling the dice and crossing our fingers that we are not all crazy, or at least dont have the same kind of crazy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, without answering your question, what exactly are you getting at? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is the difference between 1. a sandwich 2. piece of meat, a salad and a piece of toast. What is the difference between 1. a glass of water 2. the atlantic ocean So, what cx said where are you going with that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I would just like you to answer the question. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There are a few things that need to be referenced to make any sense out of this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(sorry for spoiling the fun) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Education never harmed anyone.. or, at least, it only does so very rarely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any answer will be based on my perception, and will include the resolution of which i analyze a pebble or a rock. im trying to make sense of what you're getting at though.. ill prolly just wiki boulder, pebble and mountain, and then bring up the facts. and also fleetmouse, the problem of universals is exactly what i was addressing, and im not sure if the problem of induction has anything to do with this because it's merely a look back at what we have experienced to be rocks, and what we have experienced to be anything, up until this point. there are a lot more philosophical issues that are all intertwined, but i addressed only drunke mastahs question for now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about the are the same thing but one is bigger than the other and one is really really big |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's all about how you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just to set up the next question which will undoubtably be "what is big," and "what is small?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im big! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The subjective is so done. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
biggy biggy biggy oh can't you see sometimes your words just hypnotize me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The facts about what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
little big little big cant you see? your avataras, words n music hypnotise me. And I just love your flashy ways. Guess that's why I'm hooked, and you're so great. :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hm, about the pebbles, mountains and boulders, what else? :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Most people genuinely get into philosophy to broaden their horizons. But being the petty, insecure little shits that we are, once armed with this "knowledge", we can't help but use it to belittle others with the objective of fortifying our rampant egos. The problem I have with philosophy is that it's all about observation and ideals, musing if you will. Nothing ever gets done. Look at all the millions of books on philosophy by so called great philosphers, and where are we? Still acting like rabid animals, full of greed, insecurity, selfishness - lacking any sort of altruism. The books have done fuck all, therefore you have to conclude continued reading will achieve fuck all. I despair at phrases such as "enlightenment". You are already enlightened, it's all in there - you have just papered over it with shitty thoughts. There is nothing to be enlightened about, there is no mystery, no higher plane, no such thing as self awareness - it's all fraud. Instead of robbing your bank account the gurus are robbing your intellect - and in some cases your bank account too. That's my opinion anyway, for what it's worth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I did my degree in Commerce, so I find it hard to take seriously any questions that don't involve money being exchanged. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The problem I have with philosophy is that it's all about observation and ideals, musing if you will. Nothing ever gets done." Don't talk about things you don't know anything about. "There is nothing to be enlightened aboutz" You don't even know what enlightenment means, so surely you could be enlightened about that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you've got anything purposeful to say, say it, instead of being a chicken shit. I can't help it if you're too thick to read between the lines. Enlightenment is a philosophical concept, I'm not talking about being enlightened as to what a chair is. There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect concept, enlightenment in a philosophical sense is completely meaningless - as is all philosophy. There is no right or wrong way to think or live your life other than within the value system created by your society - nature is not interested in morality. In a civilised, democratic society you are armed with all the tools you need to exist within that cultural framework. In essence, all you need to do is eat, sleep, fuck and die. Any concept you superimpose on that is entirely meaningless and not required or necessitated by the physical body - of which the brain is indivisible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what if we just want to give our noodle a workout? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree.. and drunken why dont you start explaining your view instead of giving one liners that vaguely say anything at all.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Enlightenment is a philosophical concept, I'm not talking about being enlightened as to what a chair is." And that right there is why you don't know what it is, but I'll just ask: What is enlightenment? Also, you have no grasp on meaning and the meaningless. How do you suppose you are able to (1) argue that enlightenment as a concept is meaningless while knowing its meaning (or, rather, you don't for this concept), which is what you're arguing isn't there and (2) argue that everything but bilogoical needs is meaningless which is a meaningful activity using meaningful concepts (if they weren't how would anything but monologues be possible?)? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isn't that a bit of a straw man/flying spaghetti monster type thing? he's not saying enlightenment has any meaning, he's saying the opposite. that doesn't mean he needs to know what enlightenment is before discarding it. that's like saying there is an invisible spaghetti monster over your head type thing. if not the enlightenment is the only concept one cannot discuss without fully knowing what it is, and the very essence of enlightenment hints towards a heightened sense and heightened reflection, of which one can never know if one has reached. if not everyone could call themselves enlightened.. about your second point, not sure what you mean by monologues, but i do know that all value is created subjectively by the individual, and some values are shared among several, but there is no inherent values in objectivity.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"he's not saying enlightenment has any meaning, he's saying the opposite." Yeah, and that's my point. Look at it. He's saying something meaningful, namely that the meaningful thing he's saying has no meaning. If it had no meaning, we wouldn't be able to understand it. Meaning is real by definition because meaning is something meaning something to us, so if it's perceived by us, it is as real as anything else. Even saying that meaning isn't real is a meaningful act. When someone says something meaningful to you, you instantly perceive the meaning; you are unable to perceive the words in a language you know as mere noise. If it wasn't real, what did you perceive? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Isnt it so that hes in essence saying "this sentence is meaningful because I say enlightenment isn't meaningful, but that does not mean that enlightenment itself is meaningful."? To bring meaning to enlightenment itself you have to define the word in a way that others can understand, you have to give it meaning. The mere act of saying it is meaningless does not mean it itself has meaning, it only means the sentence has ANOTHER meaning, namely that enlightenment has no meaning. Right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Which also brings me to another point, i think barcodes meaning was that meaning is added subjectively, and that enlightenment is subjective, which makes it meaningless, because everyone can have their own idea of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks cx. Enlightenment is also a search for truth. Think of the word itself, enlight - finding the light. Clearing away the branches and obstacles to find the truth of something, anything. What I'm saying is that the truth is already there. The wild animal lives a truthful life, an instinctual life - totally at one with its environment. There is no separation between its thoughts and actions. In human beings thought has allowed the illusion of a separation there, the "I" the "You", the ego. Truth/reality - whatever you want to call it - already resides in you, you do not have to do a thing. Any movement in search of truth is a movement away from truth. As I said before, enlightenment from a philosophical perspective is a nonsense. Truth is in you, but your thoughts have obfuscated truth, perverted it for your own entertainment. Because you are not interested in everyday things and the tawdriness of existance you have invented a thing called the 'beyond', or 'timelessness', or enlightenment'. And when you have tricked your mind into believing you have found some sort of enlightenment, you will get bored with that and look for something else that does not exist. If you want to be open-minded about what you are, look at a dog, a cat, a ladybird or a mouse, or even a child before it is filled with rubbish. These are much closer to the truth - and you will find what you call enlightenment there if you are really serious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
barcode, That makes me think of many different things, but among those I think of an uncertainty which lies within the search for this enlightenment. One could on one hand, like you said, settle with what one has, and in terms of philosophy not analyze existentialism, or do an active search for enlightenment. In short one can rather follow instincts more closely, and then become one with the internal and external nature. But on the other hand, many people have raised several questions about it, usually regarding spiritual serenity, a peace with the external world, and yes, some kind of higher state of consciousness that nobody except Buddha etc have achieved. Generally enlightenment involves ridding oneself of many of the illusions and 'traps' the human mind falls into, and end up in a state thats seemingly peaceful, reasoned and enlightened. That's my idea of it anyway. The problem I mentioned though, arises when you contemplate our internal nature. When I think about an animal living in the forest, following his true nature, not analyzing anything, he's just being himself through and through - that's all he knows, I tend to think this is very primitive. It might be true, but still primitive. And several mechanisms need to be in place for the animal to function, among them a natural fear, and in humans many more,including most of the emotions we have. So my belief is that consciousness and self reflection and even enlightenment is not necessarily a trap, it may be going away from the true self, but in another way it's not - because nature gave us this consciousness. And herein lies the problem - what is the ultimate nature and purpose of consciousness/self awareness? This is almost a universal question, and one I believe only humans are capable of answering, and it is in this search that we may find some kind of peace, or even enlightenment. The neat twist here is in whether or not that ties in with being more true to yourself, or if it involves altering your perception forcefully to re |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
.. to reach that state. Seeing as we have consciousness to begin with that raises a bunch of questions by itself, especially since we didn't conjure it, AND it is capable of self reflection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But what nature gave you is all you need. The human body does not require philosophy to make it more efficient. Nature only demands of you survival in order to reproduce - after that you are not necessary. Anything human behaviour/consciousness implants on top of that is completely unnecessary. Your body is already at peace. The mind is in chaos. Humans have created disorder from order. The only thing not at peace is your thoughts, and as long as it endlessly searches for concepts and philosophies there will never be peace, only death and destruction. Do you think that once the human being has discovered the universal question through science it will be at peace? Not a chance - it would merely find a new philosophical raison d'etre. Besides, is it ethical that whilst searching for the truth we kill millions? Is it an acceptable by-product of a search for "enlightenment"? No, it's primitive - far more primitive than the animal in the forest living true to nature's laws. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
