@Fido,
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
@north,
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
if your so certain that I am wrong then there is no " gas station "
@north,
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
if your so certain that I am wrong then there is no " gas station "
Did my metaphores get inseminated or something... Let me try again...The truth is a direction, and the good is a destination.......
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
if your so certain that I am wrong then there is no " gas station "
Did my metaphores get inseminated or something... Let me try again...The truth is a direction, and the good is a destination.......
so your point ....?
is philosophy dead then ?
@north,
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
if your so certain that I am wrong then there is no " gas station "
Did my metaphores get inseminated or something... Let me try again...The truth is a direction, and the good is a destination.......
so your point ....?
is philosophy dead then ?
Were it a being, and ever alive, death might be possible; but death is only a metaphore, unless you are alive, and then it is a moral form, pure meaning, and meaning only...
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
north wrote:
to both kennethamy and cicerone
are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
philosophy is not dead at all
philosophy is about just getting to the truth
not that anything goes to get to the truth , just getting to the truth
I am certain you are wrong... The truth is just a gas station on the way to the good...
if your so certain that I am wrong then there is no " gas station "
Did my metaphores get inseminated or something... Let me try again...The truth is a direction, and the good is a destination.......
so your point ....?
is philosophy dead then ?
Were it a being, and ever alive, death might be possible; but death is only a metaphore, unless you are alive, and then it is a moral form, pure meaning, and meaning only...
good
yet philosophy , thought , is dependent on a brain that is capable of thought beyond the survival thinking , life
@north,
Aristotle in Metaphysics coments: Then, as men framed systems of knowledge to escape their ignorance, it is clear they were pursuing knowledge in order to understand and not for any practical use to which they might put it . The facts themselves support our statement, for it was not until almost everything necessary for life, comfort and recreation had been provided that this kind of knowledge began to be sought. Manifestly then we seek this knowledge for no utilitarian end but, even as we call a man free who lives for his own sake and not for another's, so we call this the only free science, for only it exists for itself...
And I would add from Marx, that as needs are satisfied, wants become needs...
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Aristotle in Metaphysics coments: Then, as men framed systems of knowledge to escape their ignorance, it is clear they were pursuing knowledge in order to understand and not for any practical use to which they might put it . The facts themselves support our statement, for it was not until almost everything necessary for life, comfort and recreation had been provided that this kind of knowledge began to be sought. Manifestly then we seek this knowledge for no utilitarian end but, even as we call a man free who lives for his own sake and not for another's, so we call this the only free science, for only it exists for itself...
metaphysics , to what end though , a couch potato philosopher , no thanks
science NOW is based on trying to understand things so as to better our lives and to increase our ( Humanity ) ability to survive
from biology to astrophysics
Quote: And I would add from Marx, that as needs are satisfied, wants become needs...
imagination grows
of which Marx forgot , hence the problem with communism , it dulls the mind
@amer,
amer,
Before you "Oh dear" me, you might like to read up on posting history as suggested. My alter (sic) is bigger than your altar !
regards fresco.
@Fido,
I see you've joined the "get fresco" tag team !
Perhaps read up on Maturana, and then you might reconsider your "nobody thinks".
@Fido,
I see you've joined the "get fresco" tag team !
Perhaps read up on Maturana (for example), and then you might reconsider your "nobody thinks".
Another of my hairbrained thoughts to interupt this argument as to the exaggerated death of philosophy:
I've since read some of the reviews concerning Mr Hawking's new book. Mr Hawking has stretched the limitations of physics from describing the physical universe to include a decription of reality itself, which apparently includes a 'multiverse'. Um, last time I checked, theologians might call this concept 'infinity', and which according to my understanding, which I have come to by way of metaphysical thought, is an attribute of, but not the entire value of the physical universe.
Mr Hawking disregards the Sunday morning animation of God, seeking to describe the touchstone that brought our particular universe into existence. Theology, whose death has also been greatly exaggerated, still contains kernals of thought, that if properly understood would spark greater understanding of the origin of reality as we have come to experience it, as well as, to use Mr Hawkings' term, the non-visible 'multiverse'. As far as I am able to understand one of the concepts Mr Hawkings has discovered, or at least is seeking to discover, is none other than the concept of infinity.
As far as an understanding of infinite possibilities, or 'multiverse' goes, I have had the following thought.
In order to describe an entity (if you will allow me to express our physical universe with the term) we must establish a value which represents this entity. In this instance Mr Hawkins suggests that our reality is one reality of a multitude of realities. That's straightforward enough ... so we allow the absolute value of 1 to represent our universe. However, this representation, strictly speaking has no absolute value.
Why? Because in order for 1 to have an absolute value we must remove all the concepts which interfere with what that singular value represents. Here is a slippery example. We have 1 hydrogen atom. We accept that this atom is composed of seperate parts and that we can split the value of that atom so that we have a better understanding of its component parts. But how can it be true that 1 electron + 1 neutron is equal to 1 hydrogen atom. 1+1=1? This simple mathmatically formula is true because the two values which are not alike have fused. And this fusion undermines our understanding of the absolute value of 1. So we must revert to another means to express this fusion so that 1 of something + 1 of something else = 1 new entity whose value is now composed of two formerly seperate entities. This suggests that a fusion mathmatics is required to define the value of any given entity. Meaning that in order for 1 to have any value whatsoever, we must consider the constituent parts of 1 which apparently is constituted of an infinite number of parts, or events. We must also remove any potential events that will effect the absolute value of this entity. So we project this entity forward, still attempting to, to ascertain it's absolute value. Without going through the mathmatics of this, but rather intuitively projecting this value forward, it strikes me that the absolute value of 1 is similar to what we might define as the value of infinity.
Until it can be proven that 1 has an absolute value, rather than an abstract value, we cannot prove the existence of any series of events. It becomes useless therefore to work our way back through history, or forward in time for that matter, in an attempt to discover the path taken by that entity, and to remove all of the events and circumstances which have fused together that single entity that we seek to identify.
Here again Mr Hawking seems to suggest that all of history exists simultaneously. I am inclined to agree, if we remove the element, or perhaps function, of time we would find this to be true. Here again we have a contradiction, because in doing so we have suddenly fused together all events and collapsed them in space to form a singularity with an absolute value of 1 ...
But hey, philosophy is apparently dead, even though it still exists throughout time. It exists both dead, and as a 'living' function simultaneously?
I will be so bold as to suggest that the infamous 'M' theory that Mr Hawking seeks must include three elements: Firstly an infinite field of potential, Secondly the force that causes that field of potential to flow, or to manifest, or to fuse together within the infinite field, and thirdly the resulting manifestation. I further suppose that if Mr Hawking is correct, the most difficult aspect of this is identifying the manifestations of infinity. That is unless we can accept that any given entity exists within infinity, so that infinity and manifestation are identical relative to the criteria used to define them.
The possibility that this is true, leads to a re-investigation of many of the principles which philosophy so dearly pursues.
@north,
north wrote:
Fido wrote:
Aristotle in Metaphysics coments: Then, as men framed systems of knowledge to escape their ignorance, it is clear they were pursuing knowledge in order to understand and not for any practical use to which they might put it . The facts themselves support our statement, for it was not until almost everything necessary for life, comfort and recreation had been provided that this kind of knowledge began to be sought. Manifestly then we seek this knowledge for no utilitarian end but, even as we call a man free who lives for his own sake and not for another's, so we call this the only free science, for only it exists for itself...
metaphysics , to what end though , a couch potato philosopher , no thanks
science NOW is based on trying to understand things so as to better our lives and to increase our ( Humanity ) ability to survive
from biology to astrophysics
Quote: And I would add from Marx, that as needs are satisfied, wants become needs...
imagination grows
of which Marx forgot , hence the problem with communism , it dulls the mind
His point, which seem laughable to a point, is that philosophy is not an activity done out of need, as you say, survival, but leisure; so I presume he is not talking of philosophy as science, but philosophy as morals/ethics.... Having enough has always meant that some gather the excess to themselves, keep the majority working just as hard and build resentment and division...
Communism apart from dulling the mind fed the belly, and if misery sharpens the mind then certainly it may have dulled the mind... But people out of their very success at survival were brought into conflict with others in the same condition...So, humanity has always had plenty of misery to sharpen its wits, and communism only served to provide for their needs and common defense..
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
I see you've joined the "get fresco" tag team !
Perhaps read up on Maturana, and then you might reconsider your "nobody thinks".
Don't be paranoid... If you get shot out of the water no one will have anything to shoot at but the water; and that is hard to miss...
@Doorsopen,
The simple task of trying to conceptualize infinity in the human brain is impossible. What's beyond all the observable galaxies? We'll never know.
@cicerone imposter,
Well, infinity, in the sense of "not divided" is perhaps just reality "unconceptualized". A concept of no concept, so to speak. Infinity isn't more than we can imagine. It is less than we can imagine, due to the particular nature of our existence.
So yes, impossible
I personally don´t believe in Infinity as "quality" but do believe in Infinity as quantity, circular pattern...
Nature on Being must be ONE and only one set in Order to be conceivable, or even, shall I dare, to be possible !...
@Fil Albuquerque,
But there are many "worlds" out there that we're not even aware of. All we see is from our perspective, so that's very limiting.
@cicerone imposter,
I believe those hypothetical worlds may have difference in the initial conditions but not in the nature of the LAW´s themselves, as I see them (the Law´s) as the frame who bounds Reality together...of course I can´t prove it, but neither can them...
Infinite Law´s of Nature would render the "World" (the Multiverse) Chaotic and nonsensical instead of self fundamental !
(Just imagine in one of those worlds Mickey mousse alive and cheerful playing around...
)
