Toughest Philosophical Questions

@Solace015,

Quote:

Ok but what if I said that by pressing that button, someone somewhere across the world dies as a result of you pressing it? You still get your 10 million and there are no repercussions.

That is actually a good example of what is happening in a grand scale all over the world today. We in the west press our buttons, and people in third world countries die for it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

And the fact that we have people for war and people against war, no matter what their religious affiliation is proof that religious morals is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@Victor Eremita,

You are alive and you will die. It cannot be proven that life is based on judgement; God in the human sense is a farce because we can only determine our views of life from our lens. We do not know any other perspective and thus cannot say that something controls all life. In fact, our lives are beyond our control. But again, life cannot be described by atheism. How can we determine that there were things before us, when we were not there to witness them? How can we determine what will come after us when we will not be there? It is impossible to determine so. Life is a collection of perceptions; the physical world is a cosmic soup of the imagination, much of which the human has never physically touched, seen, heard, or smelt. Another point: the world belongs to me. This computer, this room, this building, this ecosystem belongs within my head because I witness the world through my head. So the world is imaginary; it is a part of me. And along those lines, I too am part of my own imagination. The basic idea is this: I have cultural knowledge that I came from nothing and will dissolve into nothing. In that period of time, the only judge is myself. (If God were the judge, God belongs to me as part of my belief and thus thought, an imagination). On the very outside shell of existence, I have the ability to have pleasurable experiences that are primal to my physical being. These experiences are emotions and physical pleasure. I should judge my life based on how my life is physically pleasurable. On the outside though, there is no judge.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

You only feel that fist as physical pain. Physical pain is a perception. That perception belongs to you. The fist is part of your imagination.

0 Replies

@SiriusB,

SiriusB wrote:

You are alive and you will die. It cannot be proven that life is based on judgement; God in the human sense is a farce because we can only determine our views of life from our lens. We do not know any other perspective and thus cannot say that something controls all life. In fact, our lives are beyond our control. But again, life cannot be described by atheism. How can we determine that there were things before us, when we were not there to witness them? How can we determine what will come after us when we will not be there? It is impossible to determine so. Life is a collection of perceptions; the physical world is a cosmic soup of the imagination, much of which the human has never physically touched, seen, heard, or smelt. Another point: the world belongs to me. This computer, this room, this building, this ecosystem belongs within my head because I witness the world through my head. So the world is imaginary; it is a part of me. And along those lines, I too am part of my own imagination. The basic idea is this: I have cultural knowledge that I came from nothing and will dissolve into nothing. In that period of time, the only judge is myself. (If God were the judge, God belongs to me as part of my belief and thus thought, an imagination). On the very outside shell of existence, I have the ability to have pleasurable experiences that are primal to my physical being. These experiences are emotions and physical pleasure. I should judge my life based on how my life is physically pleasurable. On the outside though, there is no judge.

so god makes you think you are nothing ?

0 Replies

@Deftil,

You know what's funny is that, when we believe that something is nothing
We give it a name, thus making that nothing something, I mean , even nothing
Is something because if it was nothing it wouldn't exist and so wouldn't be nothing, it just wouldn't be.

1 Reply

@Nothingsomething,

It all becomes clear when you understand the difference between philosophy and word games. Wink

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I understood what I wrote while I was writing it and then I now re read it and I get lost half way. The more i read it the more confusing it gets. 😲

1 Reply

@Nothingsomething,

Yes, and it will be so until you examine the concept "nothing". It is only meaningful in relation to a specific "something".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

True!

0 Replies

@Victor Eremita,

There is something rather than nothing because without something there is nothing but an empty void... but that itself is something is it not?

you should live like its going to be the best day of your life and plan like its going to be the worste.

Anything you imagine is coverd in a thin vail only the trained eye can see. The world is clear.

1 Reply

@iceabod,

The world is clear? To me, it's in constant flux and in chaos.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I agree with what you say. This universe holds an overabundance of mysteries. I'm not sure we could even make sense of it all.

0 Replies

@CarolA,

Asking "why" is a logical fallacy, because it is said with the premise that there is a reason, therefore your question is invaild

1 Reply

@btrrko,

...for that purpose no question is reasonable...once all questions demand for reason. How is one question supposed to be reasonable precisely by abandoning any hopes of reason ???
...Reason does not necessarily entails an infinite regression but only a regression to the common denominator or to the last source...what it means is that there are indeed some rare things who are justified in themselves... their reason is their existence...
The reason of Cosmos is to just be...it is justified in itself...it serves its own future !
Why something rather then nothing ? Probably the most reasonable answer is because there is no nothing...could you get a more simple answer then that ? hardly...to simply say it is necessary as it is, serves my hunger for answers quite well...

0 Replies

@Deftil,

If who i consider myself to be is nothing more than the combined result of the cells of my body. Then why should i consider the abstract notions of my waking existance to be any less real than the tangible aspects of my life? If i am just patterns in a brain composed of cells, then what of the patterns that exist in other media? Society, computer software, bells-and-whistles?

2 Replies

@furrier,

...let me lend you a hand there, whatever the medium all patterns are patterns, they all are the same in essence, with or without awareness...as for whatever notions you have they are real notions, which in turn says nothing on whether they match reality for what is asked of it, as they may or may not...what it means is that real mistakes exist and poor notions to...they are happening, they are real misconceptions !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...a further note, as it seams important to me, regarding judging reality, goes by explaining that although errors and misconceptions are real that doesn't mean reality is itself an error...errors apply to local relative contextual and situational judgements, and not to things integrated as a whole, thus they are necessarily solved...deterministically speaking errors as errors are justified in whatever you could know at a given time...based on your computing power, the source, extent and detail of information, to which you where granted access by circumstances...errors and misconceptions meta-functionally serve the purpose of perceptively, for the knower, turning the world into an "interesting", continuously challenging place...but again, when the full extension of reality is considered, wherever is an error in judgement, there must be a right answer, and a fitting solution...given an infinite amount, whatever time it takes the solution, or the reconciliation of set membership dynamics, because possible will happen...nevertheless the incomplete entity entangled in a perceptive error in judgment may very well never have access either to total or partial solution...that is, it will never comprehend...again a matter of set size membership...and quite simple after all !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the Set of all sets, who do not belong to themselves, belongs to itself ?
...take by example a square shaped set of triangles who does not belong to itself once a square, in opposition to, a triangular shaped set of triangles, who obviously belongs to itself once a triangle, again from building such set of all the non self belonging sets, the conundrum of asking if it does belong or does not belong to itself ? Because if it does it shouldn't, and if it doesn't then it should get included in order to be the so said set of all non self belonging sets...

...now, one could fairly argue that, a set of all non self belonging sets, an open set, must be by definition, undefinable or non computable from its inner characteristics...its a qualitatively transitional set from one order to another order of sets...such set is being described as quantitatively, or dynamically infinite, once it cannot belong to itself in order to belong to itself...its "belongness" is no longer quantitative, but rather qualitatively different, in a transcendent manner to its original description...that is to say, or it means that such set defining parameters are corrupted from the start...it must be a corrupted set in order to be a set...

0 Replies

Kill solipsist.

0 Replies

Toughest Philosophical Questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know