Reply
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 04:23 pm
Imagine, that your first waking experience in your life was, the sea, and you are on a small raft, floating across the vast expansive water. There is no land to be seen, all you see is the sea, all the way to the horizon, the only other thing you see, are other people floating past you, on similar rafts, no one knows the reason for them being where they are, or how they got there, it appears they just happen to be there, on the apparently endless sea. you ask someone "Do you know why we are here?", and the person replies, "I dont know, noone truly knows why we are here, I have asked many the same question." The person continues, " What I have come to realise in my time here, is that the only truth is that we are all lost."
This is how we are all equal in the world, the fact remains, that nobody, truly has any answers about how we, and the universe came into existence, and if we view the world and our place in it as currenlty uknown, I think the truth about what really matters begins to show itself, what matters is understanding the world around us, pushing the boundries of science and philosophy, in order to fully understand the nature of the universe and existence.
You will need to define what you mean by "lost"
1: not made use of, won, or claimed
2 a: no longer possessed b: no longer known
3: ruined or destroyed physically or morally : desperate
4 a: taken away or beyond reach or attainment : denied <regions> b: insensible, hardened <lost>
5 a: unable to find the way b: no longer visible c: lacking assurance or self-confidence : helpless
6: rapt, absorbed <lost>
7: not appreciated or understood : wasted <their>
8: obscured or overlooked during a process or activity <lost>
9: hopelessly unattainable : futile <a>
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lost
Further, it should be noted that simply because knowledge is not congruous with the idealizations of absolutism, this in no way prohibits the application or the usefulness of knowledge.
I think its pretty self explanatory.
This suffers from the same unfounded assumption which dogs all "philosophical" views of life--which is an assumption that there is a "purpose" to life. Life is its own end, and needs no justification. Humans have prospered, humans thrive because they question and explore. However, that has lead them to assume that there is "purpose" in the cosmos, and that it (the putative purpose) can be discovered. There is no plausible basis upon which to assume that the cosmos entails any purpose. Life simply is, and its only obvious end is to live.
cogito ergo sum
I think, therefore I am, I cannot know anything for another person.
Gilbey wrote:I think its pretty self explanatory.
If you are so convinced this is the case, you should have no trouble defining it in the context of your claims. I'll bet you cannot do it in the context of your claims.
When you think about how you enter into the world, you really don't have a choice about it, you get brought up as a child and people tell you things, and as a child you dent really question it, or if you do, someone might give you another answer, and your initial questioning fades away, you just accept it over time, its like everyone is competing for your agreement on what they believe is true, and you get bombarded with other thoughts and opinions from many different individuals and groups of people, to the point where either you will side with one opinion, or none at all, you choose to create your own, you said that what I wrote was based on the assumption, that there is a purpose to everything, but isn't it just as much of an assumption to say that there is no purpose to anything at all?
I did not and do not adhere to faith & acceptance for and of its own sake. I did not grow up like that, nor do I act that way now.
Purpose infers intent and as such requires a higher burden of proof than does non-purpose. Similar concept as to your dubious use of the word "lost" and your specious claim that the word "lost" in this context is "pretty self explanatory".
Purpose versus non-purpose also brings in the argument of Occam's Razor, not that I am necessarily in and of itself making that as a substantive argument, but it's an interesting adjunct.
Gilbey,
Your analogy is flawed because "you" are no more separate from "the sea" than "a wave" is ! Therein lies the essence of existence if not its meaning.
In order to understand what I am saying you have to take what I have written literally.
...yes....what you mean by literally implies just one philosophical position (naive realism). Of course we can "understand you" within your limited conceptual framework, just as we might understand the ancient view of a flat earth. The question is whether you can understand the limits of your concepts....for example where your concepts of "self" and "universe" come from....and move on from there.
lol all of a sudden i saw PHILOSOPHY ENDS IN MEANINGLESSNESSNESSICIZMS!!!!!!!!!!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace