what is the beggining of philosophy?

Yes It is some what true I seem to be able to analyze but at a much slower speed than many others, but dont we all have some sort of handycap?

Only if you say so. A handicapped person doesn't believe they're handicapped. They're happy to be alive. What gives you the right to believe and act like you are.

BTW - I have read several of your posts where you profess to be less capable than others. If you are going to keep acting that way don't respond to my posts. I am not going to support your "act". Acting like you are less than you really are is boring. Knock it off.

Please don't try to explain or prove it to me either!!!

I am cool with that

a person is singular they is plural the only handicapped one here is YOU

ABE, Welcome to a2k.

People 'sympathize' with you because they have hopes you will 'return the favor'. By acting as less than they are, they hope you will in turn speak of 'what ought to be' and make them 'feel' better. It's really just a game they are playing by putting themselves 'down' in order to feel 'up'. It's like a roller coaster ride you knew nothing of and never asked for but are expected to 'participate' or 'comment' on. They mistake they are making is that they really don't have any ability to 'feel', it is just a manipulation of The Gift(Be-ing) in the direction of conceptual contrast(what ought to be or what ought not to be) and is ultimately a covering up of who they are.

I believe it was you who said "I am in a world of naked people lying about being naked", you were right.

I think that you may have left out at least one word {some] Some People 'sympathize' with you because they have hopes you will 'return the favor. I myself get tired of people speaking in absolutes as if they know every thing, "so I will at times come across as humble or dumb founded just to see what kind of response I might get!
The funny thing is that when I speak the truth about me, some people can not get it unless they know me well.
Martin Heidegger would aprove of it would he not?

It takes one to know one! Really! What you see over here is you standing over there.

Cool all three of us are handicapped?

Yes, the possibility of Be-ing handicapped resides in us. We're the stupid ones for treating others as if they are 'our' interpretation of handicapped.

You seem to be speaking intellectual truth to me!

He's like a genious, isn't he? Lol

Yes he is when he tries!

I think the beginning of any philosophy is by just asking a question and being curious of where it may lead you Of course by asking more questions on top of that one.

That sounds good to me!

To begin at the beginning is to ask why and then consider why not?

Philosophy is an essential art of life, we live we breathe we inhabit time and occupy space. We are thinking reasoning beings who desire (not in any Freudian sense) to know to understand where we have come from and why we are here. Consider the great cosmic accident of birth, I didn't ask for this but here I AM.

If we study philosophy and its a wide church of mixed and opposing opinions we may garner an insight into our own existence and how it relates to others and ultimately to our self. Our sense of what and who we are.

We generate our own meaning and we do this though the discursive process, ideas cannot exist in a vacuum they need to circulate and take on a life of their own.

To me the beginning of philosophy is all about metaphysics, know thy self. All else is secondary. We are in a process of Becoming. Becoming human is the aim of the game so knowing your Greeks, your Church fathers, your phenomenologists is all gist for the mill. Ultimately philosophy is a tool which we fashion to understand our place in the world. Its not an idea of predestination or subscribing to any grand plan its simply taking a step out of your comfit zone into a bigger world and seeing what you can find there and how it relates to you.

So what is the beginning of philosophy? Self knowledge, rumination, reflection and the ability to question my existence and to seek to obtain a rational for my being as one being amongst others who are Becoming. Becoming into what you may ask well that would have to be another thread.

Philosophy is what is contained between the beginning and end of philosophizing. Philosophizing is the uncovering of be-ing. Philosophy doesn't uncover anything, in fact it covers up who you are with definitions and concepts.

You are the uncovering. You are not the definitions of philosophy.

You have to 'be' before you can philosophize and you have to philosophize before you can contain your philosophizing into a definition (philosophy). Philosophy has no value, its the philosophizing or "thinking through to the end" that produces the results.

One other thing to notice is that 'you', be-ing are the beginning (the root) of philosophizing and subsequently philosophy.

If you don't get to the root (uncover) of who you are then your 'philosophy' has holes in it and will provide you with absolutely no value.

Let W be the set of all possible worlds and let a subset of W, z, be the set of all worlds in which I exist. Accordingly, if we start with the actual world which we denote as 'a', there is, if we start from T0, an action in which I have two choices. Each choice respectively denotes a possible world into which I chose one of the two. Let us also assume that we set possible worlds to a linear time line.

From this we can say that, given a choice that I make there is an additional set of choices into which there corresponds two additional possible worlds. From this there is also another set that gives me two choices, to which there is again two more possible worlds. We may express the number of choices by saying '2 to the w power'. From this there is an infinite number of possible worlds simply from one choice.

Now let us end the interval on which T0 with T1. Accordingly, the interval [T0,T1] is equal to '2 to the w power'. That is, the size of infinity is the same. Now given, that there are an infinite number of possible worlds in which I make one of two choices, I exist necessarily in all of those worlds. But the problem is that, in order to approach the question of 'me', that is, Be-ing, I would have to interpret every single one of me that exists in a possible world. The horizon of being is infinite, and thus the interpretation of being cannot be completed, as I would have to interpret every possibility of my being which I cannot do, since infinity is, by definition, without limit.

[Insert witty comment here.]

why or how does this make sense to you ?

I don't get it.