11
   

Life too short for Philosophy?

 
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:59 pm
@The Joker006,
Rhys Arnold wrote:

Hello Everyone

As much as I like discussing and learning about Philosophy I personally think that it can get a little to tedious and a bit technical. I mean disucssion is great and everything but why argue the facts of science and religion? Ok much of discussion are about theories too - it's never ending and there is no fresh material to explore it's the same old. You all know the saying, "Life's too short for arguing", so why use philosophy againsts it's self?

Yes I totally understand about "thinking outside the box", but we all have lives don't you think we just get on with it? Rather than sit on our asses all day infront of a computer screen arguing a toss over atoms and god lets enjoy life because it really is too short.

I would love to hear your opinions on this one.

Have a great day
Rhys.

So, because you don't find philosophizing worthwhile, you've convinced yourself that no one can find philosophizing worthwhile? You must have considered that there are others in this world with interests not of your own, and that some even enjoy philosophizing, right?

Strangely enough, I would suspect that being on a philosophy site, philosophy is also an interest of yours. Or did you just join a philosophy site to scold others for joining a philosophy site?
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 08:00 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Ok you got me there but you do see knowledge in him and alot of it.
Ok we all get it wrong some times, I seen something else he wrote other than what you showed me that I questioned and did not bring up in a responce, but why the hate speach and not just point out where you disagree or just over look it.
Knowledge without rationallity is utterly useless, which only makes you a Rain Man.

You should know one can't talk sense to people who in the first place lacks rationallity. Yes, for one issue you can, but then you have to spell everything out for such person, which I won't waste my good time with, I'm sorry.

I can't keep track of my updates, I have to manually sit and read through all the topics which where I have posted, I havn't found any feature that allows me to see the new updated topics. Maybe you can enlighten me of this.

Please provide link to that former post where you have asked me questions, and I will answer.
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 07:12 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Ok you got me there but you do see knowledge in him and alot of it.
Ok we all get it wrong some times, I seen something else he wrote other than what you showed me that I questioned and did not bring up in a responce, but why the hate speach and not just point out where you disagree or just over look it.

Don't fight over the dog... Let the dog fight for you... I have read a lot of books, worked long enough at a trade to retire, have had some successful relationships, and have had a lot of life experiences... But as far as knowledge goes it is encyclopaedic, cursery in fact, a mile wide and an inch deep... I have some sense of all knowledge and am expert in no subject...

What I say in regard to moral forms, which are what we build our social forms like religion and government out of, is that they are meaning without being... This much is obvious, and I am not alone in recognizing that people are primarily irrational, for that was the advance of Nietzsche, and his age, including Freud, crowning the age of reason with a fools cap and bells...Reason does have an insistent voice in the affairs of human kind that demands a hearing....Yet, primarily, it is in the physical, material world were reason works to tell truth, and since moral forms are infinites, with not once ounce of any moral form anywhere in evidence, the effect of reason upon them is nil.. If you would reason upon justice, then first define justice... It cannot be done since every example of justice is different in its circumstances... We see the failure of government as a social form to realize justice in our lives, though it is one worthy goal for which the government was formed... Why is the preamble of the constitution the least mentioned part of it??? Are not those goals worthy of mention; and should the result not be measured against the aim??? In fact, no one wants to face the failure of their forms, and the failure of the form rests squarely on the inability of people to define their moral forms in rational terms...

And if you look at culture, as the Germans would use the word: Civilization, then you misunderstand the thing, because the great cultures of civilizations stand upon the honor of individuals and the cultures of small groups practicing a moral law based upon their understanding of moral forms as good, and good for a specific reason: That good came out of their practice as evil flowed out of their neglect... The universal law of mankind is the incest taboo, and the reason is simple, that the chances of an obvious anomoly with a close relationship is significant.... For primitives, sin and lawlessness had an effect on the whole community; but for us, crime has become a means of self expression... It is not morality that demans justification, rationalization... To do what is done because it is what good people do needs no rational... Reason enters morality as justification for injustice; and since justice as a moral form is an infinite withour definition, the advantage rests with the rational ones... Why should people be good??? Why should people be moral??? Why not feed ones self on the body politic like a louse feeds on the blood of babes???

With Heidegger, one can see the pendulum in peopls lives, where to know self and feel existence one must break away from culture, and yet to have survival people as soon return to culture so that the moments in any given life when a person lives by choice without culture, and moral forms are quite few... Whether reasonable or not, people need social forms, and whether they can be defined or not, people need moral forms...

The best relationships, in my opinion are informal, without form... To live in that fashion, without rules, on the strength of ones own moral sense is stressful...That is why lovers seek out the form of marriage even though its constraints often kill the relationship... If they are smart, people build their forms according to their needs and not on the needs of people's past. Then they would have to define all their moral forms for themselves instead of picking up the moral forms defined by and for others... But stressful or not, rational or not, that is the best way... If you or I have a dispute over justice, it is our definition that is the essential one... Upon what points can we agree???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 07:28 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:

Ok you got me there but you do see knowledge in him and alot of it.
Ok we all get it wrong some times, I seen something else he wrote other than what you showed me that I questioned and did not bring up in a responce, but why the hate speach and not just point out where you disagree or just over look it.
Knowledge without rationallity is utterly useless, which only makes you a Rain Man.

You should know one can't talk sense to people who in the first place lacks rationallity. Yes, for one issue you can, but then you have to spell everything out for such person, which I won't waste my good time with, I'm sorry.

I can't keep track of my updates, I have to manually sit and read through all the topics which where I have posted, I havn't found any feature that allows me to see the new updated topics. Maybe you can enlighten me of this.

Please provide link to that former post where you have asked me questions, and I will answer.

There is no knowledge without rationality, for to know anything is to know the reason for it; and that is why morality cannot be taught: because the reason for them is not clearly obvious and its counter, Outlaw Individualism is easily rationalized...Morality is pre-rational, and usually irrational... People do not deny themselves pleasure or suffer pain for their societies because they are rational, because reason demands that single perspective of the individual, without paralax... Ratio must have a perspective, while religio, the begining of ethics is clearly a moral form, which is to say: a spiritual sense of community, as we would call Morale...Spirits, and spiritual senses are not rational... Since morality always demands sacrifice, some times to the point of sacrifice of life it cannot be rational since meaning in reason is only reasonable so long as we live, and have meaning, as people.. Just as no one would attempt to reason on the nature of the soul, no rational person would attempt to reason of the spirit of community, but it is just in that sense that communities live, as existence in the true sense of the word, without death, so long as its spirit thrives.

The place where reason works is in the physical world where cause can be shown to lead to an effect... In the moral world, moral forms cannot be defined, and moral actions which are often painful and always self denying cannot be shown to lead directly to good... Moral behavior is learned before reason, but on the whole, morality is taught to cultures by nature, and the failure to learn the lessons of moral behavior and the price of forgetting is found in the destruction of ones community... While the Greeks and Romans were morally strong they were invincible... As soon as individuality, which is always immorality began, the decline of the society began... We too are being demoralized, bit by bit... If we followed our constitution in spirit, and were guided by its goals, then we might have built a strong nation out of the refuse of many nations and we have not... We are learning, but because the logic is obscure we cannot say we are learning
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/27/2021 at 12:04:28