Forums → WEPR → The Philosophic Thread
| 45 | 12568 |
Ive been thinking a lot, developing some questions like:
What is Reality?
What is experience?
How are we here?
Why us?
I was wondering if i could get a group of intelligent people to help answer and validate these questions.
- 45 Replies
I'm still confused on your confusion. You can comprehend my philosophy? Well, what does that say about you? Anyway this has turned from Philosophy to Troll Omnihero10
"I'm still confused on your confusion"?
How about "I am confused about why you don't comprehend my philosophy"
And why study nuclear physics? The only thing I'd be doing instead would be resurrecting old methods or playing around with something. Who gives a d*** about nuclear physics? Safe energy is wind and solar power, which doesn't explode if you remove cooling.
Plus, if this thread is on philosophy, why say to do something practical? Your points are hypocritical and self-destructive.
If Existance is Being? What is Being?
If Being is Existing? What can define both?
You seem to be asking for a definition. Philosophy isn't tying two separate points together, it's about questioning one thing at a time.
Again, this is a Philophsy thread, not a Grammar thread, but you are correct, a single letter can completely alter a sentance.
That, and your apathy for trying to make yourself understood shows that you really just want to hear yourself talk and don't care much for responses.
Seriously, at least type in Word and copy/paste out. It will fix most grammar/spelling errors for you, enough so that no one will comment otherwise.
If Existance is Being? What is Being?
"Being" would be the present tense of existence in relation to the self. Something cannot be if it cannot perceive itself to be. It just exists.
If Being is Existing? What can define both?
Both are the definitions of themselves, as is everything else. We put things into words to communicate ideas.
Philosophy isn't tying two separate points together, it's about questioning one thing at a time.
You can question multiple things at a time if they're relevant. Depending on how deep you go, everything is relevant.
You're talking to three people, three of the last remaining common posters. If you define all of our posts as trolling, you have no one to talk to. But that isn't the point, is it? You've posted this to voice your thoughts, which is easier if you just talk to yourself IRL, instead of bringing out us posters to listen to your lack of grammar and your self-inflated feeling of maturity.
I didnt bring you here did I? You came here on your own free will. Without me here you find yourself constantly clicking Refresh button waiting for a reply.
Is this how you find validation in yourself? surfing the Armorgames forums, just looking for a bored teen who wants to talk about anything. then criticizing him until youfind that you have you crushed how you feel "IRL"
I would not suggest bringing up my use of a common acronym when your latest post is still only about 90% grammatically accurate.
Alas, it would seem, gentlemen, that we have gotten horrendously off topic. But, then again, philosophy is very hard to discuss without a good topic, so;
Why did we invent religion?
Why did we invent religion?
I wouldn't call that philosophy. Religion likely first originated because people wanted to explain the world, much like we do now. They believed what they were told and had no reason to question it, and taught their children what they had found out. Some claimed to hear things for attention, or were delusional, or mis-attributed natural occurrences for supernatural beings or actions.
Here's one to pick at, which I've been working on myself.
What makes someone who they are? Their experiences? Their genes? Their thoughts? Their actions? A mixture? If someone else had the same of everything, would they be that person, or would they still be someone different?
Their actions are what makes them who they are in a figurative sense. A skinny man can be an excellent athlete if he trains, an evil person can commit an act of good, like saving someone.
What makes someone who they are? Their experiences? Their genes? Their thoughts? Their actions? A mixture? If someone else had the same of everything, would they be that person, or would they still be someone different?
I tend to think of it as a mixture given all of these things play a roll and interact with each other to help form and shape our personalities. If a person had all the same stuff then yes I suppose they would be the same person. Of course if we are dealing with a sort of clone like in lets say something along the lines of a quantum teleportation situation where an exact copy is made with memories and all. the two will begin having different experiences.
Though in a way we do have this happen to ourselves all the time. The material that you are currently made up of isn't the same material from when you were born. Depending on your age here this has likely happened several times. So in this sense you have been replaced by someone with the same thoughts, experiences, genes, etc.
Their actions are what makes them who they are in a figurative sense. A skinny man can be an excellent athlete if he trains, an evil person can commit an act of good, like saving someone.
Though their actions will make a big part of the individual as seen by others, it isn't enough to define who you are in total. Looks also play a role in how people perceive you, and all other factors come in play to define your being in total. Like Mage I think it's a mixture of everything.
A perfect copy remains but a copy. And it is only a perfect copy for the [smallest time unit] when it was created; right after that time both will change from what they were then, and change differently as they are not victim to the exact same conditions.
Let's say we had a wooden ship. Let's call it the S.S. Philosophic. As time goes on boards that make up the hull of the ship begin to rot. Those board are of course removed and replaced by new boards. Over time everything on the ship eventually breaks down and is replaced. This ship that has had replacement parts is still the S.S. Philosophic, but let's say someone gathered all of the old rotting and broken parts and put them back together in the form of a ship. Which ship would be the S.S. Philosophic?
The one with the designated name. Port records do not lie (mostly)
The person who used the old planks can only claim that he used the Philosophic's boards, he cannot say his ship is the Philosophic, unless the previous captain relinquishes the name.
This is very practical.
If more than half the discussion of a Philosophy and logic thread is comprised of retching over half-decent English grammar, you know we're having a problem here. I don't expect much out of 314d1, but the others in the beginning could at least have ignored them and dug straight into the reason why this thread was formed, namely, to discuss the points at hand.
Deleted posts that were conflicting; please continue.
Which ship would be the S.S. Philosophic?
They both are, just in different ways. The S.S Philosophic was the name of a boat that belonged to the mystery man we don't know about. Over time as the boat became weared, he changed the parts, but it is still his boat overall, just modified. If the old parts were put together in the shape of a ship ot would still be that ship, just in a different (almost like a past) form. The way I thought about it was by replacing boat with human. Because human cells and tissue die of or wear down and are replaced. It sounds really gross and it is, but if you could rebuild your body from the old destroyed parts, you would have you. Old, nasty, rotten and dead, but it was still apart of you. The old you, not the new one.
You know, e]Einstein couldn't see why he should match his socks. We have the same reasoning
That was John Bell and his paper on Bertimann's Socks...
Their actions are what makes them who they are in a figurative sense. A skinny man can be an excellent athlete if he trains, an evil person can commit an act of good, like saving someone.
Is an action good or evil based on its intention, or its outcome? If I intend to cure cancer, but instead kill a million people, am I good or evil?
You must be logged in to post a reply!