26
   

what is the beggining of philosophy?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe I did, but I'll have to scroll back to see if I posted it.


Do do that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:31 pm
@kennethamy,
I did, and it was a direct response to you: (2 pages ago)
Quote:
@kennethamy,
To build or not to build the a-bomb; that is the question. To use or not to use the a-bomb; that's the question. To build or not build atomic reactors for power; that is the question. To build a community center/mosque two blocks from ground zero; that is the question.


Do you believe for a moment that any one of those I listed above was free from emotion? Did you know that many of the scientists who helped build the a-bomb was against its use? Do you know how emotional it gets when a nuclear reactor is planned in people's neighborhood? Have you kept up with the community center/mosque building in NYC? Do you think that emotion wasn't involved in any way. Do you also think that "common sense" or group think has it right on denying the building to the land owners? No emotion?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 04:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
I thought this-

Quote:
It's all a matter of degree, but in most developed countries today, they're not struggling for food and shelter, so survival is not their primary concern. There are still the majority on this planet who struggle to feed themselves and to find drinking water.

However, with the industrial revolution where many food stuffs are mass produced, and other creature comforts are available, humans are no longer at the stage we were at 10,000 years ago. I think it's been a very slow process until about 5,000 years ago, but the last two centuries were the most progressive period for humans.


was pretty nonsensical seeing as how you were addressing an A2K audience rather than an infant's class.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 04:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Do you believe for a moment that any one of those I listed above was free from emotion? Did you know that many of the scientists who helped build the a-bomb was against its use? Do you know how emotional it gets when a nuclear reactor is planned in people's neighborhood? Have you kept up with the community center/mosque building in NYC? Do you think that emotion wasn't involved in any way. Do you also think that "common sense" or group think has it right on denying the building to the land owners? No emotion?


You are getting confused ci. Once emotion enters the scene philosophy vanishes. You make no point. If people get emotional about those issues then they cease to be philosophical about them. Your trying to connect the two shows you lack understanding of either and it's a classic non sequitur as well and as such aphilosophical.

If I was moderating you would be off the thread because there won't ever be any philosophising done whilst ever you are sticking your oar in with nonsensical statements for no other reason than that you believe it burnishes your self-esteem to be taking part in a philosophy thread on the www.

Philosophy begins with the setting aside of emotions except insofar as they might be discussed unemotionally as a force in nature which account must be taken of.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 05:21 am
Is it being proposed here with absolute certainty that humans are the only lifeforms able to philosophise?

I do not agree with this.

Mark...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 05:23 am
@mark noble,
On what grounds?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:20 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The inclusion of emotion into philosophy only complicates the subject.


Have you an example of including emotion into philosophy. I don't know what you mean by that.

As if Love were not essential to the pursuit....

You can't even say the word philosophy without talking of an emotion... Do you think it is all physics, because if it is not physics, emotion is involved in it... It is morals, and emotions are moral realities that occupy the greater part of philosophy...If the question is asked of the place of emotion in philosophy the answer is not so much obvious, as that the questioner is retarded... It is obvious, and if your question is serious, you are retarded...All moral questions are settled by emotion...
But how would it follow from that, that emotion was included in philosophizing? How about an example?

It is its Raisen de Etre, love of knowledge that is love of the good which is good for all of humanity so that philosophy is not only about knowledge, but is itself philanthropy, love of people... Is it not obvious??? Look at how many have given their lives for it in one fashion or another... Do you think that even their humiliation, their devotion in the literal sense was without reward???


How is that an example of emotion included in philosophizing?
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:30 am
@spendius,
On the grounds that I don't believe it. Do you have evidence to refute it?

I study animal behaviour, as do, no doubt, you, and I can see when they think and consider things.

I see it in the inherited traits of animals too, through the variety of taught principals acquired from their parents - What to avoid, where and why to shelter, the security of silence and stillness. All these are behaviours that require consideration.
And this consideration is begotten through individual philosophy.

I even believe bacteria and viruses have a philosophical outlook.

Mark...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

No, I'm not surprised. Level of education doesn't mean they have ethics or humanity.
There is nothing specifically unethical about being a suicide bomber... If you want to prove the existence of a world community in which all are invited and all may find a home then I may have to agree with you...Until that time, to kill or die in defense of one's community is not unethical, but is the highest ethic...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:33 am
@Fido,
I Agree.

One man's suicide-bomber is another man's freedom fighter.

Mark...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 08:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I did, and it was a direct response to you: (2 pages ago)
Quote:
@kennethamy,
To build or not to build the a-bomb; that is the question. To use or not to use the a-bomb; that's the question. To build or not build atomic reactors for power; that is the question. To build a community center/mosque two blocks from ground zero; that is the question.


Do you believe for a moment that any one of those I listed above was free from emotion? Did you know that many of the scientists who helped build the a-bomb was against its use? Do you know how emotional it gets when a nuclear reactor is planned in people's neighborhood? Have you kept up with the community center/mosque building in NYC? Do you think that emotion wasn't involved in any way. Do you also think that "common sense" or group think has it right on denying the building to the land owners? No emotion?
I have to laugh, if laughter would betray some emotion at the thought of people working on the Atomic Bomb being agianst its use... Would that be like helping to rob a bank and not wanting to spend the money.. What did they do it for??? When was knowledge not used to give one an advantage???

War is settled by violence, but peace is settled by people who want it, who have an emotional attachment to their lives, to their own families, and have some human affection and understanding for other people in other places... These wars are not all because they disrespect us... North and South respected each other better after the war... Germany and Japan had more of our respect after we fought them... The Vietnamese have our respect as never before...Our wars are not all their fault or it would not be possible to buy a peace with mutual respect...Just as a man cannot love a wife he cannot respect, neither can we love a people we cannot respect... But our leaders would not lead us into wars if they respected us, and that is an emotional question as well, of how we can elect and tolerate people who hold us in contempt which is easy enough to do because the political system holds us powerless..

Emotion is at the bottom of all moral questions... What is truth is always answered by who is asking, and what is at stake... If it is our lives that hang on a definition of truth, and I assure you that they do, then let us hope those asking the question have some reason to regard us with affection...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:14 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
I even believe bacteria and viruses have a philosophical outlook.


In what way does it differ from your's?
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:30 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
My opinion would be to know that you could be wrong. What is your opinion?
I agree. Cough cough, religious faith.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:35 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

I Agree.

One man's suicide-bomber is another man's freedom fighter.

Mark...


No wonder, since it is possible for someone to be both a freedom fighter and a suicide bomber. Since freedom is a goal, and suicide bombing can be (thought to be) a means (tactic) to achieve that goal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:43 am
@Fido,
Fido, I worked with nuclear weapons while in the US Air Force in the late fifties. I know about its history.

The following is from military history:
Quote:
early days of the project," one scientist recalled, "we spent little time thinking about the possible effects of the bomb we were trying to make." [7] It was a "neck-and-neck race with the Germans," the outcome of which might well determine who would be the victor in World War II. But as Germany approached defeat and as the effort to produce an atomic bomb offered increasing promise of success, those few men who knew what was being done and who appreciated the enormous implications of atomic energy became more and more concerned. Most of this concern came from the scientists in the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, where by early 1945 small groups began to question the advisability of using the weapon they were trying so hard to build. [8] It was almost as if they hoped the bomb would not work after it was completed.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 11:24 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Fido, I worked with nuclear weapons while in the US Air Force in the late fifties. I know about its history.


That's a 10 megaton non sequitur.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 11:43 am
@spendius,
Your's is beyond nukes.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 12:35 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Fido, I worked with nuclear weapons while in the US Air Force in the late fifties. I know about its history.


That's a 10 megaton non sequitur.
It is a problem with physics that it compartmentalizes thought... On the assembly lines of death, lunch and quiting time dominate over all moral thoughts.. Its the Auschwitz mentality... Its not my fault; I only followed orders...

It does not matter does it??? No one can stop the forward march of scientific progress... And if some one has a weapon, they will use it, and nuclear weapons have been used many times in the past 60 odd years... They have figured in every difference of opinion and depate between super powers and their allies.. They have been a threat to every small country on the planet, until now, those people have the intelligence, the education, and the ability to build their own and threaten us...

How do you cure intelligence, or the hatred necessary to use intelligence for injury??? No one ever cures one moral disease with another...Behind all the little men in white suits doing their most to build death and destruction was the fear the they could be shoved into the meat grinder of war... It was not over until it was over, and the most desparate and inhuman enemy had been saved for last... I son't think the act was difficult, but then, no one considered the moral omplications before hand... Bombs away.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 12:38 pm
@Fido,
In the military, you follow orders. There is no other choice.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 01:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There is. Muhammad Ali proved it.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 03:58:59