Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Philosophical Thinking

Posted Nov 1, '13 at 6:34pm

pft

pft

526 posts

Well... this has stopped being philosophy. So, yeah, I'm out.

Ever wonder why you don't see me that often in here?


Again another vague sentence. What is it you actually want this to be about? In your words what is philosophy? Instead of giving statements that don't help anyone why not post things that you actually want to speak about.

This all is not entirely meant to be taking seriously. There is some aspect of fun to it.
 

Posted Nov 2, '13 at 1:43pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,954 posts

In what way? what makes you come to this conclusion? What is your meaning of philosophy? What is the direction you wish to go in?


What we have now are essentially a group of questions in which the answers are based on our opinion. Now, I say this because there is no room for discussion into which we give reason for our answers..questions are only being asked with no discussion being offered.

Take this question:
Is time Endless?


I could answer it..but then we'd be done. Unless you are wanting to have a mess of discussion..you can't just throw out different subject matters like this. This one questions is good enough to be a thread discussion, but you offer nothing for it to go off of other than a question of subjective value.

To go more in line with the idea of the thread, you should ask is time endless? If so, how? (given that, according to known knowledge of the universe..it will end).
So, if it is endless, does time continue on with another universe being formed, or does it continue as it does now, as an idea.

Also, there is the question of does time hold value? Is time real, or merely something of our creation?
etc.
 

Posted Nov 3, '13 at 2:51am

pft

pft

526 posts

this forum is mostly debating not philosophizing...
in debates people try to get the best reasons over a other.
in philosophy people try to find the understanding and reasoning of other peoples thoughts. free of any own interpretation.


What we have now are essentially a group of questions in which the answers are based on our opinion. Now, I say this because there is no room for discussion into which we give reason for our answers..questions are only being asked with no discussion being offered.


Thanks for some clarification to the posts.

First off i want to point out. A debate is still a discussion.

Secondly, coming up with the best way to explain things in this sense is logic. In most of these Science. Which is basically a way to gain knowledge. Which is part of the meaning of Philosophy?

Thirdly what discussions do people with that doesn't involve questions? Isn't this response a response to your response of the Question? If That isn't a discussion then i don't know what is.

Lastly, i am a more generally social speaker than i am a writer. Since i am mostly on the outside world having the discussions there. In a public example i would give a answer or question to the information i was given, then if i was asked why do i think or know that i explain. Am i expected here to explain every question i ask? I find that insulting to to other peoples knowledge and is a waste of time. Also it would take the only discussion of people asking me if they didn't know.

Also the whole point of this thread was intended to get people to come up their own meaning of things and to see some questions hidden behind another question. This allows us to gather more information from tasks if we think of more than just the actual words there.

If this thread isn't your thing then you have free will not to contribute. For those wanting to understand the world more or anything really.then this is a place for you.
 

Posted Nov 3, '13 at 3:33am

pft

pft

526 posts

What is your favorite word?
"why"
as a child we keep asking why verbally. but we will never stop asking why when we grow up in our head.


This was my second choice, the reason for that is because clearly it is human nature to ask.Although i knew at least someone would answer with that but the first word that came to my head was "Egregious" the answer i gave. Due to it being virtually non existent in the everyday world. Plus it is a double meaning which i also particularly enjoy because i find humour such as oxymoron's and puns have similar aspects. I often use them fairly often. Which from this which might be a surprise how i came to this, it was to me despite me knowing it haha. Looking for more meanings in the things that currently exist even if it is my own interpretation.

What is the ultimate fate of the universe?

many theories. pick one =P


Is time Endless?


I will use both these to explain each other. Looking at all the theories of this is difficult to have an exact answer, which is why i made it a question. Now time being another unit to measure a distant but It is known that after a certain amount of time, stars can die. If we are using it as a measurement of when we expect things to happen then could be a yes and no. Also let's take to fact that in space terms alot agree as space and time as space-time, being the same thing or similar. Since time isn't constant then our term of time that we base on our planet's orbit around the sun or a year. Possibly the universe infinite. If we had in time to the big freeze or heat death. which is when the temperature of the universe is too low for anything to work. Now considering if you look at each of these theories the timeline of the universe is a huge difference.

Even after this i don't think we are the only universe there is. If you agree with the multiverse theory. Which actually at this time isn't something anyone can prove. Maybe of each universe if we assume that eventually it will pause and retract in on itself. I doubt that would be it, Another universe can come from the singularity as the Big theory suggests the current one did. This is the one i am leaning to more than any currently.

Plus to take into consideration is that maybe two separate universes interacted or crash and bounced of each other.Since these other universe are unlikely to be accessible from other universes. With the collision creating everything we have in our universe.
 

Posted Nov 3, '13 at 3:59am

pft

pft

526 posts

Dislike to having to make a 3rd post but there is no edit button :-(

Is time Endless?

I could answer it..but then we'd be done. Unless you are wanting to have a mess of discussion..you can't just throw out different subject matters like this. This one questions is good enough to be a thread discussion, but you offer nothing for it to go off of other than a question of subjective value.


What we have now are essentially a group of questions in which the answers are based on our opinion. Now, I say this because there is no room for discussion into which we give reason for our answers..questions are only being asked with no discussion being offered.


I threw it out there to see what would happen. I know this wasn't a question to have a simple answer that is the reason, I am not a discussion creator. O.K be it my thread or not.If other people don't contribute to it then it can't work. this was to have some kind of discussion form from it. Maybe perhaps now from the post i have made about it now.

Is there always room for discussions it isn't bound by anything that the discussion is based on the questions. They are just things i have asked in order to spark general interest and get the proverbial brain juices flowing.

Things that can effect us or a portion of us like things in the news do count as philosophy aswell. Although i do admit if is it big news then a topic on it with a thread might be better. Off of the main discussion though we can ask what do other think about it.
 

Posted Nov 3, '13 at 6:34am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,278 posts

Moderator

Sorry for my earlier post - I do genuinely appreciate what you're trying to do here. I was grumpy from marking essays all day, but that's not excuse. It was rude, and I apologise.

But I do have the worry that people with no background in philosophy might get the wrong idea about what it is philosophers do. Those earlier questions about one's favourite word or sound or whatnot are well without the ambit of philosophy.

As a philosopher, I take what I do very seriously. I'll be the first to grant that it's often too seriously. But I feel that it's part of role to help attract people into the field (even if it's just for some undergraduate classes). Statements like the ones below risk misrepresenting a field that I love:

Things that can effect us or a portion of us like things in the news do count as philosophy aswell.

Also the whole point of this thread was intended to get people to come up their own meaning of things ...


... why not post things that you actually want to speak about.


In light of our previous discussions on welfare, I thought I might present a question that philosophers today (including me) are working to answer.

What sorts of things have final or non-instrumental value? That is, what sort of things have value in and of themselves?
Suppose I argue that achievements are finally valuable; there are some compelling arguments that this is the case. If this argument runs through it would have a strong impact on a number of different fields within philosophy. So the answer to the question helps in further theorising.

So any thoughts as to what sorts of things might have final value? Happiness or pleasure has long been thought to be a prime candidate. Kant thought that the 'good will' was finally valuable, and maybe he was right. There are lots more out there, maybe.
 

Posted Nov 4, '13 at 9:40am

pft

pft

526 posts

But I do have the worry that people with no background in philosophy might get the wrong idea about what it is philosophers do. Those earlier questions about one's favourite word or sound or whatnot are well without the ambit of philosophy.


Although themselves they aren't entirely philosophy, i am aware. However the thinking behind these questions somewhat is. Normally philosophy is based on the logic we use to look at things in greater detail. If anything this shows us another way of thinking in stead of just logic. Thinking about things in another way is philosophical to a sense.

As a philosopher, I take what I do very seriously. I'll be the first to grant that it's often too seriously. But I feel that it's part of role to help attract people into the field (even if it's just for some undergraduate classes). Statements like the ones below risk misrepresenting a field that I love:

Things that can effect us or a portion of us like things in the news do count as philosophy aswell.

Also the whole point of this thread was intended to get people to come up their own meaning of things ...

... why not post things that you actually want to speak about.


To an extent they don't seem like that much to do with philosophy although if we take news as example. Depending what this is if it will be something big like economic struggles which effects alot of countries. The approach we can take to think about how to get back on track or other ways to gain this is what i meant.

I can see how this can lead to misrepresentation, i will rephrase this as to what i actually meant. People are to understand the logic of things from different perspectives. Others have different meanings of things but what i mean by their own interpretations is not a blind guesses, it is using what you see in front of you and working out logical a solution. As others might not see it as you do it's then you right to try to explain and help others understand.

This essentially meant pose the questions based on this thread.

In light of our previous discussions on welfare, I thought I might present a question that philosophers today (including me) are working to answer.

What sorts of things have final or non-instrumental value? That is, what sort of things have value in and of themselves?
Suppose I argue that achievements are finally valuable; there are some compelling arguments that this is the case. If this argument runs through it would have a strong impact on a number of different fields within philosophy. So the answer to the question helps in further theorising.

So any thoughts as to what sorts of things might have final value? Happiness or pleasure has long been thought to be a prime candidate. Kant thought that the 'good will' was finally valuable, and maybe he was right. There are lots more out there, maybe.


Value of things depend on a few aspects, Mostly on the belief that it holds value.Intrinsic value is the value that an entity has in itself, for what it is, or as an end. Now to speak about value i will pick an easy example everyone should understand such as money.

Money holds value as it buys things we need, such as food, water and shelter. However money as any currency can become worthless. Simply if a country invaded another and declared they don't accept the countries money anymore then it loses value. Hyperinflation is another reason for fiat money to lose it's power, by simply people believing the money to being not valuable and obtaining other currency instead. This type of money, the one all of us use is called fiat money. The word "Fiat" is Latin for let it be done. It is a promise from the makers of the money (governments) that the value of the money you hold is worth that value. The belief of the people makes this money have value. As this money itself holds no intrinsic value.

Commodity money is money whose value comes from a commodity of which it is made. Commodity money consists of objects that have value in themselves as well as value in their use as money. Examples of these are Gold and silver, which due to their rarity hold a value that cannot be erased by any authority. The only way value of these drop if there rarity decreased which is highly improbable. Other examples are bullets, cigarettes, alcohol etc. I would like to disclose as food and water, they can be commodities but i see them as more a human right and vital on our survival. Therefore food and water has the highest value of anything, since we all need it.

As something i often say is happiness is one of the most valuable things there is. Anything that achieves happiness is worth going for. Some people take pleasure in helping others. I disagree that there can be selfless acts and that everything is entirely done for self gain, be it non monetary or increase your own happiness you gain from helping. Everything is done for a reason. If we apply that good will is key to value then being nice to others and therefore returning that. Would make a great world. This is currently difficult to do since most people value money over their own happiness. People often won't help others without this money to entice them to do so. Under peoples own beliefs money leads to happiness, that although there is no way around it as of yet. We need money to buy basic survival things like food, water and shelter. We can all play a part in making the world a better place. Treat others as you wish to be treated. Challenge those that try suppress us.
 

Posted Nov 6, '13 at 6:34am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,278 posts

Moderator

Money holds value as it buys things we need, such as food, water and shelter.


Indeed it does. But money has what is called instrumental value - that is, it's value is only relative to some further good. So perhaps you use money to buy a boat, which will give you pleasure. The line of thought here is that the money is only instrumentally valuable relative to the pleasure you get from the things you buy (though there is an interesting argument offered by Erik Olsson that things which initially have only instrumental value can end up having final value).

... happiness is one of the most valuable things there is.


So happiness/pleasure/utility is quite widely accepted as something with final value (I avoid using the phrase intrinsic value for technical reasons). It seems intuitively true and there are lots of compelling theoretical reasons for accepting this claim.

But granting that happiness has final value leaves us with another question - is happiness valuable without qualification? In short, there are many different kinds of happiness/pleasure. Does happiness gained from torturing innocent people or eating babies have final value? If not, then we would have to put a qualification on the claim that happiness has final value. Something like: non-sadistic pleasure has final value. But I imagine there are counterexamples to this as well, which leaves open the question of what we're left holding after all these qualifications.

What if it's not the pleasure itself that has final value but the overall state of affairs in which pleasure is acquired?
 

Posted Nov 7, '13 at 12:12pm

pft

pft

526 posts

So happiness/pleasure/utility is quite widely accepted as something with final value (I avoid using the phrase intrinsic value for technical reasons). It seems intuitively true and there are lots of compelling theoretical reasons for accepting this claim.

But granting that happiness has final value leaves us with another question - is happiness valuable without qualification? In short, there are many different kinds of happiness/pleasure. Does happiness gained from torturing innocent people or eating babies have final value? If not, then we would have to put a qualification on the claim that happiness has final value. Something like: non-sadistic pleasure has final value. But I imagine there are counterexamples to this as well, which leaves open the question of what we're left holding after all these qualifications.

What if it's not the pleasure itself that has final value but the overall state of affairs in which pleasure is acquired?


It could be different on what happiness for others is. I am not sure if sadist people happiness is necessary for them, They will likely not know other ways for happiness or have been hurt all their life and this is them getting back from it. I am not completely sure if they are happy about this. They might be thinking this is what happiness is for them but if they do find real happiness might realize the true happiness. Despite doing what makes you happy it is wrong to take happiness away from others. The ideal happy state is everyone is happy not just most. Not sure if this is achievable. So Qualifications should be placed.
 

Posted Nov 7, '13 at 7:45pm

Erabor

Erabor

279 posts

The ideal happy state is everyone is happy not just most. Not sure if this is achievable.

Your right, that is ideal, and it could only theoretically exist in a place like Heaven.
If it could exist here on our Earth, then it would all be perspective. Let's say that in 200 years there is some kind of twisted, extremist dictator that rises to power and takes over every aspect in a citizen's life. He could have the mentality that all of his people are happy, maybe because that's what he convinced himself that, but when in reality, the people are suffering heavily. So I guess what I'm trying to say is- It all depends on the state of your sanity or psychological health. You probably don't like the fact that I brought science into a thread dedicated to thought, and for that I apologize.
Conflict, however has always existed. Its part of the human nature to benefit oneself and promote itself. Now there are outliers to this theory, such as people that dedicate their lives to missions work, or people that just love to make peoples life better.
Another question, though.
What if the whole world was somehow composed of these 'outliers'? Then could a peaceful world exist?
 
Reply to Philosophical Thinking

You must be logged in to post a reply!