• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

philosophy

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the positivist philosophy is too sceptical with its insistence that the Divine cannot be witnessed or perceived in any way. For this reason, when the lukewarm becomes the norm, the cold has a doubtless superiority as it is confident in the chance that answers can be found, old traditions can be torn apart and disregarded in history's own recycle bin.

Philosophy only exists as long as there is doubt. When clarity is attained in many ways, it either stops being necessary for a particular person or it only serves as a means to explain, find answers and justify own choices.

Needless to say, it would be a monstrosity to demand that it is desirable for all to maintain a state of unrest and doubt. For that reason, it is quite clear why philosophy is a marginal interest and an unappealing approach to life for most people who prefer their feet to be firmly rooted in ground as opposed to floating in nothingness.

Then again, should comfort somewhere be found solely to avoid the inevitable period of doubt? That would mean this very comfort is fragile and deceitful to its bearer. I would say that philosophy is a stage everyone is supposed to overcome, overcoming the strictly critical approach to things and overcoming it thanks to that critical approach itself.

With philosophy's own help, philosophy exists in order to fade, it is prominent in order to lose its prominence.
 
Lucchini said:
I think the positivist philosophy is too sceptical with its insistence that the Divine cannot be witnessed or perceived in any way. For this reason, when the lukewarm becomes the norm, the cold has a doubtless superiority as it is confident in the chance that answers can be found, old traditions can be torn apart and disregarded in history's own recycle bin.

Philosophy only exists as long as there is doubt. When clarity is attained in many ways, it either stops being necessary for a particular person or it only serves as a means to explain, find answers and justify own choices.

Needless to say, it would be a monstrosity to demand that it is desirable for all to maintain a state of unrest and doubt. For that reason, it is quite clear why philosophy is a marginal interest and an unappealing approach to life for most people who prefer their feet to be firmly rooted in ground as opposed to floating in nothingness.

Then again, should comfort somewhere be found solely to avoid the inevitable period of doubt? That would mean this very comfort is fragile and deceitful to its bearer. I would say that philosophy is a stage everyone is supposed to overcome, overcoming the strictly critical approach to things and overcoming it thanks to that critical approach itself.

With philosophy's own help, philosophy exists in order to fade, it is prominent in order to lose its prominence.
Click to expand...

pretty sure i read this in a fortune cookie
 
On the subject of Leibniz's explanation in the first post, how did he explain simplicity (in the meaning of not being made of several parts) in the case of God if he wasn't an anti-trinitarian (and I don't remember him being one, though Newton certainly was)? Unity in essence and multitude in personas is something that one would either describe as complexity according to that definition of the word 'simple'.
 
I remember an episode of Criminal Minds that touched base on this and went a step further: acknowledging the existence of one implies acknowledging the existence of it's opposite, i.e God and the Devil. It really is debatable ;)
 
Swaggersaurus said:
read my post again, and do so more carefully
Click to expand...

then you should know that it was an appeal to authority that you made, which isn't exactly reasonable!

What kind of philosophy are you getting into? My brother has an MA in philosophy with specialization in ethics and just got accepted into a PhD program!
 
no, it wasn't

this is why i said ivar should read my post more carefully; it doesn't say "i study philosophy so i know what i'm talking about (appeal) and in light of that this thread is bad!" it says "i spend my time studying philosophy (objective, not an appeal or value judgement) and i find the discussion of it terrible -- perhaps, implicitly, in all spheres!"

i'm not getting into any philosophy; i'm leaving it behind after like five years to be a politics major
 
HiddenDragon72 said:
I remember an episode of Criminal Minds that touched base on this and went a step further: acknowledging the existence of one implies acknowledging the existence of it's opposite, i.e God and the Devil. It really is debatable ;)
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear what the reasoning behind that was. Pretty dubious statement knowing Lucifer is only a creation, like all others, and not another God with the minus sign attached. That would be like saying the opposite of a male is a boy.
 
Lucchini said:
I'd like to hear what the reasoning behind that was. Pretty dubious statement knowing Lucifer is only a creation, like all others, and not another God with the minus sign attached. That would be like saying the opposite of a male is a boy.
Click to expand...

This sort of links back to the well-tread 'first cause' argument.

It's intended to be an explanation for why evil exists - God is all-powerful and all-knowing etc., but Satan / Lucifer is the same but evil. God tries, but he's having to deal with Satan's shit - which is why we have both earthquakes (Satan) and, say, kittens (God).

It makes marginally more sense ethics-wise, but it's half as sensible looking at physical evidence because now we have more than one 'higher being'.
 
well shit az you don't think that post was just even a little misleading? i dont think anyone interpreted it the way you intended it

why do you think all philosophical discussion is terrible? why do you take philosophy then, when a central component is discussion? just took a random major that you get good marks in?
 
i studied philosophy because i was interested in it, obviously

i don't know why you'd think it is the sort of subject you can just easily pick up good grades in, unless you meant "you" as in me in particular

maybe at an intermediate level or something, but then hello predicate logic
proof1.png


discussion is fine, but look at how productive the discussion in this thread has actually been. you don't have any answers, just different questions as people leap gazelle-like from one field of study to the next

i'm going to "major" effectively in politics because it's arguably the closest thing to a practical application of the good parts of philosophy, and less of the bad. having said that, it has a shit ton of its own problems, obviously
 
Swaggersaurus said:
i don't know why you'd think it is the sort of subject you can just easily pick up good grades in, unless you meant "you" as in me in particular
Click to expand...

Philosophy isn't exactly hard for someone who is capable of rational thought. The hardcore logic classes that are more like algebra, sure, but philosophy as a whole is remarkably easy. It is in arts, after all. Technically any science and all of math had it's roots in philosophy, so all brands of thinking with a requirement for logic or rationality have a foundation in philosophy and use the better parts rather than the shitty parts.
 
yeah i meant 'you' as in you in particular

anyways, just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean we haven't learned anything from the discussion
 
iirc, there isn't a single thing all philosophers would agree on, so 'answers' is a mysterious, irrelevant little thing to expect from a philosophical discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top