Philosophy is Dead

The idea of God is part of the Metaphysical problem which is promptly excluded from this method given that such conception of God cannot be falsified...on other turn I often explain, that I personally, have a more down to Earth conception of God relating it to Nature...that of course falls in the realm of opinion and the only thing that can be falsified in it, its utterly dependent on the concept presented to judgement, and only in that sense alone...what else ?

0 Replies

@Fido,

No ! Meaning depends on Being and not the other way around...
Being defines in the first place what is to be meant, as meaning must have a nature, thus therefore a being...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

1 - No ! The fact that Knowledge cannot achieve certainty does n´t mean that Knowledge is not valuable ! The idea that if it works its (like) Truth, its actually a very pragmatic attitude !

I don't know where you get the "No" from. You haven't justified it. You have seen myths and fairy tales the way you want to see them, subjectively, ignoring that they might be seen another way and be true in that other way.

And what is up with pragmatism and especially at the level of the pragmatism of myths and fairy tales. They don't become unpragmatic because you can't see why they are. Or, seemingly, because you don't discuss the matter. Have it on Ignore in other words. Or because it is more difficult to measure and test than a mind-game in physics. Your materialism is fundamentalism.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
1 - No ! The fact that Knowledge cannot achieve certainty does n´t mean that Knowledge is not valuable ! The idea that if it works its (like) Truth, its actually a very pragmatic attitude !

I don't know where you get the "No" from. You haven't justified it. You have seen myths and fairy tales the way you want to see them, subjectively, ignoring that they might be seen another way and be true in that other way.

And what is up with pragmatism and especially at the level of the pragmatism of myths and fairy tales. They don't become unpragmatic because you can't see why they are. Or, seemingly, because you don't discuss the matter. Have it on Ignore in other words. Or because it is more difficult to measure and test than a mind-game in physics. Your materialism is fundamentalism.

most don't understand that there is the physical objects , galaxies , suns , planets , moons etc which are made from a type of energy

life energy is a whole different type of energy , completely

1 Reply

@north,

Completely.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Completely.

Completely

north

1 Reply

@north,

With not one iota of doubt.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

With not one iota of doubt.

none

0 Replies

@spendius,

What materialism ???
Get to the 21 century...neither am I a materialist neither a spiritualist. That dichotomy is rotten top to bottom...now I am actually a "Substantiste" if you want, or an apologist that there is something rather then nothing...yet I don´t pretend to describe the nature of this substance which constitutes Reality whatever one wants to call it...instead I am trying to deal with a more abstract concept concerning the meaning of Truth as I see it and only up to where I can get it...there is no pretension in my words to grasp the whole of what it might signify, in fact I have been making a case in the opposite direction when it comes to knowledge.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No ! Meaning depends on Being and not the other way around...
Being defines in the first place what is to be meant, as meaning must have a nature, thus therefore a being...

I am not disagreeing that meaning depends upon being, but we could not look for truth or anything if we did not already live, so it is a given, and yet still must be provided for, thus science for knowledge and truth are essential to continued life, and we love it no matter how many of us it kills as long as it promises life...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Common Fido you can do so much better than that...don´t I deserve a bit more of respect then such an answer like the one you just throw me in the face ?
What the hell are you talking about ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Common Fido you can do so much better than that...don´t I deserve a bit more of respect then such an answer like the one you just throw me in the face ?
What the hell are you talking about ?

Meaning is being, and truth is essential to being, but truth in the hands of enemies or strangers is no better than ignorance and a lot more dangerous to life, the source of meaning... The problem with science is no morals, no moral content, no moral context... And morals are all meaning, exactly like life itself...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Would n´t that be the fault precisely of humanistic seventy´s generation (Frenchy and the likes) with their "flowerly" conception of soft education ? Uhmmm...I wonder who is to be held responsible...Watch some TED videos for instance and you will get all kinds of decent people...drop the drama !
You actually are addressing the Economical World and the cancer of middle class, Technocrats, Bureaucrats Administrators and Politicians...an all different breed of people who probably your generation out of "Rousseaunian" naivety let in the University´s to corrupt Institutions with thousand years...a disgrace !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

This "limbo" you suggest is exactly the problem. I find it funny that the intellectual pursuit of how we understand what is truth (epistemology) has less assisted us in our ability to declare truth, and more enabled us to avoid it. I think the actors motives in this have been well disguised.

Since we've been discussing it, let us talk a bit about Shroedinger's cat a bit more. Shroedinger said that the cat exists in two states until WE observe it. Again, with the anthropocentric ego. His dilemma pretends to put the quantum against absolute outcomes. Shroedinger doesn't seem interested in the observation of the cat (a creature with notably more tunes senses), nor the observation via physical interaction of the countless atomic molecules in the system described.

Shroedinger would have a very hard time explaining how human observation played into events prior to humans. If observation affects states, then it's interesting how two actors observations may be different and yet the physical evidence does not have to validate either observation.

Apply the rashomon effect on a murder trial. Two witnesses describe the victim being shot in the chest, and then the mortician testifies that the bullet was removed from the head.

Again returning to my comical musing about if a symphony falls in a forest, and nobody is around, does it make sound; does it make music? It certainly makes sound, but music requires an observer to evaluate. Now, add observers--as many as you want. Even with observers, there is no guarantee that music will be observed.

Observation certainly plays a part in our universe, but Shroedinger's cat fails as a demonstration on how. It simply ignores what can observe.

What is the sun to you, and what is it to a plant? Even without cognitive ability, the sun represents a real observation by the plant. The plant's observation of the sun and your own are most likely radically different. If we are to explore the effect of observation, we can't neuter our imagination to only human observation.

We just aren't that important.

A
R
This scares the **** out of religious types.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I agree with it all...so as you can see nothing on what you said so far harms my position...I myself am not a particular fan of Schroedinger, still what I meant in reply to a previous poster was that if what He said is to be taken at serious value Truth itself is not diminished by he´s assertions...

...nevertheless mind that "Observation" as to be seen in a more loose sense...one can translate it to communication without losing content...

My position does not pretend a final word on Truth but simply to acknowledge it.. which from the beginning in this Thread was up for debate...a cacophony I tell you !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It harms the idea that things are true until false. Even Schroedinger can't escape this. The cat is alive or dead says Einstein, and Schroedinger says it can be both. What Schroedinger does not say is that the cat is a dog (dead or alive) until proven it is a cat. The fact that ANY finite dichotomy of outcomes can be logically constructed (even if Schroedinger tries to blur them) demonstrates the problem with true-until-false reasoning.

Let us speak plainly, what is the end game for such philosophers? If proof can never be made in the negative, then illogical ideas may continue to be entertained. If proof or evidence suited their beliefs, they'd not be championing such a philosophy. Superstitions and supernatural beliefs should not be entertained as true until proven false. This is dishonest.

Also, I apologize. It seems I logged into my old account on that last post. sorry if this created any confusion. TKO = ART.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Would n´t that be the fault precisely of humanistic seventy´s generation (Frenchy and the likes) with their "flowerly" conception of soft education ? Uhmmm...I wonder who is to be held responsible...Watch some TED videos for instance and you will get all kinds of decent people...drop the drama !
You actually are addressing the Economical World and the cancer of middle class, Technocrats, Bureaucrats Administrators and Politicians...an all different breed of people who probably your generation out of "Rousseaunian" naivety let in the University´s to corrupt Institutions with thousand years...a disgrace !

Rouseau had his faults... Liked to expose himself, had many children, all with a retarded woman who could keep house but barely communicate and all were put in orphanage... All that age of reason stuff has betrayed humanity... It took Nietzsche and Freud to set the world right... Reason is what we use to reach our irrational goals... The same is true of science... It is all about power, and no part of it is for moral ends... But they are hardly worse than the best of us... We are all in insanity overdrive... Who's got the wheel???

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

It harms the idea that things are true until false. Even Schroedinger can't escape this. The cat is alive or dead says Einstein, and Schroedinger says it can be both. What Schroedinger does not say is that the cat is a dog (dead or alive) until proven it is a cat. The fact that ANY finite dichotomy of outcomes can be logically constructed (even if Schroedinger tries to blur them) demonstrates the problem with true-until-false reasoning.

Let us speak plainly, what is the end game for such philosophers? If proof can never be made in the negative, then illogical ideas may continue to be entertained. If proof or evidence suited their beliefs, they'd not be championing such a philosophy. Superstitions and supernatural beliefs should not be entertained as true until proven false. This is dishonest.

Also, I apologize. It seems I logged into my old account on that last post. sorry if this created any confusion. TKO = ART.

A
R
T

Ideas are not true until false... Ideas, true ideas, concepts of the physical world are only so many facts, all with support... There is no such thing as an unsupported idea... Ideas of the moral world have testimony rather than evidence behind them, but they are not true concepts either...

1 Reply

@failures art,

1 - The problem is not with Philosophers but with Scientists...the method it was useful, and it has its merits in its context, a motivation to look for empirical justification...of course if one takes it beyond its scope critic is very well due !

2 - ...No worries with the Avatar you peak, no need to apologise. Wink

1 Reply

@Fido,

What exactly from my post are you addressing? I mention "idea" once, and it was in reference to logical/illogical.

What is the "moral world" and what does this undefined realm have to do with anything I said?

A
Realms
T

0 Replies

Philosophy is Dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know