Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

laughoutlood wrote:

Quote:
Give me your hardest philosophical question and I'll answer it to my own satisfaction.


How would you answer my hardest philosophical question in a manner that was not to your own (sic) satisfaction?


By typing.

Give me a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer.


Fine. What is a serious question?


A question asked with serious intent.
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:44 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

Give me your hardest philosophical question and I'll answer it to my own satisfaction.

O great oracle:

These are my problems, which I humbly lay before you and beseech that you solve for me.

(I probably have more, but these are the first that come to mind. Pick as many as you like!)

Define either of the terms 'class' or 'property' in such a way as to avoid Russell's paradox.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-russ/

Explain how a person's behaviour can have motivations of which they are not conscious.

Explain the content of one of your own moral judgements (not one of someone else's).

What is a person?

What is a mental illness?

What is the role played by the human nervous system in conscious experience?

What does it mean to say that a set is finite?

Are there infinite sets?

What is science?

What is reason?

What is mathematics?

What is conservatism?

What is liberalism?

What does the word 'God' or 'god' mean?

What is the meaning of sexual desire? Why, as persons rather than bodies, do we need sex?

What does it mean to have worth? How can this be a rational judgement?

How is it possible to have purpose? How can this be a rational judgement?

What is measurement, bearing in mind that it is always approximate?

Can a phenomenon be paranormal but not supernatural?

Does synchronicity exist, and if so, what does it tell us about the world?

What does quantum mechanics tell us about consciousness in relation to physical reality?

Is there an ontology of everyday human life which is compatible with scientific knowledge?

Is meat murder?

Can human beings handle the truth about political power, or are we always deluded?
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 11:35 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

laughoutlood wrote:

Quote:
Give me your hardest philosophical question and I'll answer it to my own satisfaction.


How would you answer my hardest philosophical question in a manner that was not to your own (sic) satisfaction?


By typing.

Give me a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer.


Fine. What is a serious question?


A question asked with serious intent.


That would be, I think, a question that was asked seriously, but not all questions that are asked seriously are serious questions. For instance, a child may ask, quite seriously, how high is up? But that is not a serious question. Question. did you find your answer satisfactory?
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 12:07 pm
@Night Ripper,
Is 'function' a primitive concept in logic?
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 12:23 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip wrote:
Define either of the terms 'class' or 'property' in such a way as to avoid Russell's paradox.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-russ/


The solution (not mine) to Russell's paradox is to redefine classes hierarchically. The class of all cars is on a different level than cars. Likewise, the class of all classes is on a different level than classes. So, it doesn't contain itself.

Twirlip wrote:
Explain how a person's behaviour can have motivations of which they are not conscious.


I'm not sure how that's philosophical? Explain how it couldn't? *shrugs* Where's the conceptual problem here?

Twirlip wrote:
Explain the content of one of your own moral judgements (not one of someone else's).


I respond emotionally to certain situations and thereby form a system of personal values. They aren't correct values. They are simply my values and if you don't like them then we have to settle it by whatever means, violence if necessary.

One of these values is that I treat people how they want to be treated while assuming they also want the same for me. I don't hurt people because I don't want to be hurt. I don't empty my wallet to strangers because I assume they wouldn't want me to.

Twirlip wrote:
What is a person?


Whatever considers itself a person.

Twirlip wrote:
What is a mental illness?


A psychological condition that comes about in a way that can't be attributed directly to the person but rather the physiology of the brain itself.

Twirlip wrote:
What is the role played by the human nervous system in conscious experience?


I don't think this is really a conceptual problem, at least not yet. I'm looking for armchair problems.

Twirlip wrote:
What does it mean to say that a set is finite?


It contains a limited number of members.

Twirlip wrote:
Are there infinite sets?


That depends on whether or not the universe is infinite. That's not a conceptual question though.

Twirlip wrote:
What is science?


Science is a social endeavor to obtain beliefs about reality that are useful, robust and hopefully true.

Twirlip wrote:
What is reason?


The systematic application of principles for moving from proposition to proposition.

Twirlip wrote:
What is mathematics?


The study of quantity. See Wikipedia.

Twirlip wrote:
What is conservatism?

What is liberalism?


I also think Wikipedia will help you better here. These are just labels people apply to certain social groups.

Twirlip wrote:
What does the word 'God' or 'god' mean?


An extremely powerful intelligence beyond, even in principle, comprehension.

Twirlip wrote:
What is the meaning of sexual desire? Why, as persons rather than bodies, do we need sex?


Is that even true? Speaking as a guy, my body is usually leading the way.

Twirlip wrote:
What does it mean to have worth? How can this be a rational judgement?


Something has worth when you would give up other things for it. It's rational only insofar as we compare the different values we assign to things. I give up a certain number of hours for a certain number of dollars because it's worth it to me. However, that worth is a personal value that is ultimately emotional and not rational.

Twirlip wrote:
How is it possible to have purpose? How can this be a rational judgement?


We give ourselves purpose. Again, this is rational in how we compare our different values but how we obtain them is based on emotion and not reason.

Twirlip wrote:
What is measurement, bearing in mind that it is always approximate?


A record of quantity.

Twirlip wrote:
Can a phenomenon be paranormal but not supernatural?


Yes but not forever.

Twirlip wrote:
Does synchronicity exist, and if so, what does it tell us about the world?


Again, this seems like a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Twirlip wrote:
What does quantum mechanics tell us about consciousness in relation to physical reality?


Nothing.

Twirlip wrote:
Is there an ontology of everyday human life which is compatible with scientific knowledge?


Pragmatic skepticism.

Twirlip wrote:
Is meat murder?


Legally, you can only murder another human. Let me assume you meant to ask if killing dumb animals is wrong. No, it's not wrong because they're dumb animals. They have no appreciation for their existence. This is just my opinion though.

Twirlip wrote:
Can human beings handle the truth about political power, or are we always deluded?


Again, that's a factual question not a conceptual question.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 12:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

laughoutlood wrote:

Quote:
Give me your hardest philosophical question and I'll answer it to my own satisfaction.


How would you answer my hardest philosophical question in a manner that was not to your own (sic) satisfaction?


By typing.

Give me a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer.


Fine. What is a serious question?


A question asked with serious intent.


That would be, I think, a question that was asked seriously


That's what I meant. I'm looking for questions that are asked seriously.
0 Replies
 
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 01:18 pm
@Night Ripper,
Thank you, great oracle. I am now enlightened, and shall pass from this plane of mortal existence.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 02:51 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip wrote:

Thank you, great oracle. I am now enlightened, and shall pass from this plane of mortal existence.


New rule, limit one question per person.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:07 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

Twirlip wrote:

Thank you, great oracle. I am now enlightened, and shall pass from this plane of mortal existence.


New rule, limit one question per person.


You aren't serious!
0 Replies
 
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:08 pm
@Night Ripper,
Not three magic wishes?
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:06 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
Try to Stump Me

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Please be as exact as possible.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:23 pm
1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
---Plantinga

Question: what does this argument prove?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:13 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
---Plantinga

Question: what does this argument prove?


Nothing, because of the logical gap between 4 and 5. But that seems obvious.
north
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:44 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

Give me your hardest philosophical question and I'll answer it to my own satisfaction.


why ?
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
---Plantinga

Question: what does this argument prove?


Nothing, because of the logical gap between 4 and 5. But that seems obvious.
Yes it's obvious. You have to go Physics 101 on what it means for a state of things to be possible to play the game. Good to see you KA!
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:58 pm
What question don't you have or don't you want an answer for?

(Different question but can be the same)
What don't you know?
0 Replies
 
cplank92
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2012 12:27 am
@Night Ripper,
To say that you will answer any question to your own satisfaction then that means that you are satisfied with yourself and seek not to learn or grow, but to show off and stay in stasis. Now to say, "Give me a question of a philosophical nature that doesn't deal with things like the issue of god making a stone he cannot lift.", then that would have given someone a reason to pause and think of a good question. Even the above question can spark debate, such as an argument that either A) God doesn't exist, B) God could exist, but isn't perfect, which leads to a religious discussion such as "The idea of a Christian all knowing, all seeing God cannot exist."
Context and word choice my friend, that is what is important.
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2012 12:48 am
@cplank92,
You are wrong dude..
It also means one is merely content with answering questions, many do..
Many do also at levels below their proven knowledge, to believe not, is to believe all that is written indicates entire psychology of a person.

4 to 5 can be a typo of some description to limit the interest, or else philosophy can become flocking, which is not good, one seeks, or one does not find. To seek for oneself is the greater purpose, other words and ideas are intriguing at best.

Not, as some state, 'pride only' motivated, be they questions or answers.

Man can go on in many ways about differences and possibles...
The truth is, philosophy is the flourishing of ones search.

I will also add a postulation for you:

That most enlightened being, created by the stars themselves as God and man looked on.. Would only find his prison was attack, if man sought his truth in unison.
0 Replies
 
RyanO45
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2015 07:24 pm
@Night Ripper,
If my mama said "Don't talk to strangers," how do I make friends?
0 Replies
 
AdamLOV
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 02:18 pm
@Night Ripper,
If Nothing is the only thing that is, how can one debate as to whether that Nothingness is or is not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Try to Stump Me
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 12:56:34