Syk3

Yeah, I preordered mine Friday morning. My friend and I went over to EB at around 9 am and were around 20th in line. >_o I held off on getting a memory card, not only because of the 512 mb built-in flash drive, but because someone in line told us that it's a generic type you can get a lot cheaper somewhere else. I did, however, preorder a few games: Zelda, of course, and Red Steel. I guess there's a chance it might be crap, Frying Pan Man, but I wanted at least a little variety in the games outside of the sports demo. lol I was afraid they weren't going to let me preorder it at first because I could only write a check, but luckily my friend had a debit card to loan me. -.- So man, I can't wait until the 19th now, but I'll try not to think about it. haha Supposedly Nintendo is supposed to send out shipments every few weeks after the initial 4 million or so, which is awesome in comparison to what I heard about the PS3: 400,000 to start and not reshipping until March, plus double what it costs for Wii as the standard? Damn, blow me. :p By the way, White, the EB I was at had the policy that they issued Wiis based on order in line for preorders. So the first person would get a call when the first Wii was in, and so on. If you didn't preorder one at this store, you won't be able to buy one at launch if the preorder numbers exceed the console quantity.

@_@ My God.. I love this anime. :] I saw the first two episodes at my anime club last Friday, and I'm hooked now. haha I've been checking fansub sites every day for the next episode, and that's something I never do, not even for Naruto. :p Does anyone know what days they usually air in Japan, which days those correspond to for the US, and how long an average fansubbing takes? kthnxbye The things that I really love about this anime are the philosophical and psychological undertones (those are my majors anyway, so I suppose it's not that surprising), going into [spoiler]moral judgments and studying human behavior in general[/spoiler]. Exploring this sort of hypothetical question is just so deeply satisfying, being able to share in the insights of the creater and compare them to my own in forming a stronger view. [spoiler]The power to send punishment based on your judgment of someone's moral worth? As tempting as it sounds, I'd probably end up turning it down. I would not likely have picked up the book to begin with, I wouldn't have tried it out if I had because I'd be afraid of the possible consequences, if I knew the possible consequences (including in the afterlife) I'd decide not to do it, and if I actually managed to get past that point then I would most likely spend my time developing the standard for which I should be judging these people and whether I would even have that right. Luckily, Light is a badass and we can watch an interesting anime. I have no doubt, however, that he's already corrupt in his power; typical human, lol.[/spoiler] My Japanese friend was telling me that Death Note was originally a novel. Can anyone confirm that form me?

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']I guess my point was that becoming a "philosopher" or trying to get a job in philosophy has very, very limited use. Certainly, philosophy has use if you apply it in a practical way. And again, I will say that philosophy definitely helps you on a personal level such as if I had a moral problem, or if I wondered how to be happy.[/quote][size=2] Oh.. yeah. That's true. lol Being a professional philosopher is up there with being a professional artist; in order to even make a living, you must publish fantastic work that survives the horrors of peer review. The job market is limited if you want to make money from being a philosopher, so I wonder if that's actually an underlying message to those studying it: that you're going to have to see it as providing something of deep interest to you if you really want to pursue such a career. For me with my two majors, I see Philosophy as something that can help me in life and Psychology as something that can help me in a career, though the latter is still something I love to learn about. Even with something typical like being a philosophy professor, it seems like a neat idea but from what I've learned you sort of have to keep up with the times and current affairs in philosophy, which doesn't help if you don't like what's being discussed now. And if you do like what's being discussed now, it could easily switch over to something else; there's not a whole lot of independent research time that people may dream about with that job, and you cannot escape the academic aspect of it (perhaps you may always wonder how it's different "in the real world" lol).[/size] [/size]

I don't see how your points pose more of a problem for philosophy than for any other field of study. If you're expecting to impact the world with your writing or research, you're going to need a lot of luck in addition to years of experience. lol I'm not saying that it's easy to make a splash in philosophy, but in response to Retribution it's possible to apply the knowledge gained by studying it in a practical way (if you so wished to do so), be that by simply living your own life or by trying to improve the lives of others by structuring politics. It appears to me an argument that can be resolved by clarifying for Retribution the true nature of philosophy, against which he seems to have created a personal definition based on face-value. Do you ever have moral problems? Of course you do. Do you ever wonder how to be happy? Of course you do. Philosophy studies these areas and helps immensely. I understand that you support his possible goals in nanotechnology, but no subject guarantees "[size=2]that your work will EVER impact ANYONE in ANY real way".[/size] Changing the world for all to see is an ambitious dream, and I don't pretend to have a desire to do so. The question is, do you deny that people [i]have[/i] done this with philosophy, and that it's had a considerable effect on others/society/whatever you like? I can do my part to try improving the quality of life for those around me, as I'm working towards becoming a psychotherapist, though I think it's important to take a step back before pushing humanity as a whole forward (which is what I'm taking you to be defining as practical) and see if things like materialistic science and medication everywhere is really the way to go. EDIT: I've been thinking about this some more, and I'd like to add that it's possible to be practical with something like philosophy without impacting society in a major way. If this is how you define practical, then it almost defeats the purpose of doing anything at all if that which is not practical is useless and that we should avoid useless things. As a psychologist who studies people on an individual level, I admit that I sometimes react harshly to some sociological ideals that negate the possibility that people have reasons for doing what they do. And once we get to that individual level, what becomes practical may be as simple as sustaining a strong degree of mental health, which as I've been saying goes along with philosophy; it's not merely a result of mental health, but improves upon it. Philosophy is, of course, not limited to the individual level, but it's certainly not devoid of it either, by any means. Whether you can see the practicality or not ultimately doesn't matter. I've found through posting here that it's difficult to relay practicality through concepts that others so despise. I know through my study of moral philosophy that I've obtained motivation and knowledge to become a better person and defend my position of such, which of course influences my decisions between actions. Recently I've also counsoled myself and others around me by developing and sharing my philosophy of death. In terms of supporting practical value and uses of philosophy, it's against what I see to be self-evident to say otherwise.

I honestly cannot think of anything that is [i]more[/i] practical than philosophy, and if you can dismiss the whole thing as useless I'm not really sure how to respond. The thing about philosophy that I love is that it puts everyone in the same boat no matter what background or knowledge you have or time period you're in, in order to understand the world in which we find ou[size=2]rselves and how to cope with it. It's about dealing with what we've got, but if one doesn't attempt to understand philosophy of course it won't be of any use. You seem to be denying the possibility that developed conceptions and points of view affect us in a major way, either individually or collectively. By your logic, I should be able to knock off the studies of history, art, creative writing.. basically any of the humanities, simply because they don't tell us anything about how circuits go together to create computers which support our materialistic society. These subjects provide not only the motivation, but the accepted knowledge as well to enable us as human beings to put our best work into practice. Perhaps you're also unaware that philosophy often distinguishes within itself knowledge that is useful theoretically or practically. It's important not to get caught up in particular time periods, such as this one, because you come to find through studying history that civilizations rise and decline very similarly to each other; maybe this timelessness of study you're reacting harshly to isn't as bad as you may think. It's true that philosophy does not have a clear advancement (more along the lines of two steps forward, one step back), and therefore it's important to study the range of philosophy and philosophers to understand their important insights along the way. [quote name='Retribution][/size] [size=2']What is wholly useful? Nothing is 100% and completely useful, but there are things that are far more essential to the progression of the human race. Electronic engineering or law is far more useful than philosophy.[/quote]I mean no offense, but your statement about nothing being 100% seems more lip service to accepted corrections than supporting your argument. But sure, because of the functions of things, they are intended to do only particular things with other possible uses as a second-thought. Philosophy may not be much help within an irrational realm, because of its deep root in rationality (whether you want to see this or not, Phaedrus :p). What do you consider to be essential for humans, and what is good progression of the human race? Why should humans blindly attempt to progress without considering philosophy? [quote]Ask yourself [i]why[/i] the only job as a philosophy major is likely a teacher of youth. Once you ask yourself this, you will understand what I mean. The study of philosophy exists to retain past knowledge, which is a noble goal, but it's certainly not as useful as an engineer or a businessman.[/quote]Ask yourself why philosophy majors are among the most proficient when they apply themselves to other areas of study, using an underlying philosophical approach (yes, that's practical application). It's true that it's difficult to see someone getting paid to philosophize, but consider the Sophists of days past (not a great an example, though), or being hired by companies to head an ethical departmant that is often consulted on what should be done. And even if it only was to hold knowledge, the fact that practical application must be done by humans, and humans have perceptions that frame this practice, and these perceptions are affected deeply by philosophy means that it's not useless. [quote]It can be useful to you, but if you exist solely to pass on the knowledge to future generations and nothing more, just know your use is very limited.[/quote]Do you have any idea what a different world we'd live in if Socrates had not philosophized? Plato? Aristotle? Descarte? Kant? Please, inform me if you honestly don't recognize the crucial foundation that philosophy has provided to change the course of history many times over by someone who wished to question reality. [quote]Never did I say that philosophy is only personal beliefs.[/quote]Semantics (happy? -_-), you said that's the only use of it. lol "...[/size][size=2]but ultimately useless aside from creating your personal beliefs." [/size] [size=2] [quote]The difference between passing on philosophy and passing on nanotechnology is that [i]one[/i] has a practical real-world [utilitarian] application while the other does not.[/quote]Dude, you know utilitarianism is a philosophical concept, right? Developed by Jeremy Bentham, he attempted to influence the field of moral philosophy by developing an ethics of doing where one would try to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. He intended for this philosophical idea to be psychological and practical in nature, and it soon spread to application in other areas. [quote]Of course the improvement of the human condition is a completely subjective measure and opinion-based statement. What is the human condition? How can that be "improved"? The answers to these questions vary from person to person, so your claim falls flat.[/quote]It seems to me that one should not get caught up in working only with how this society operates because then you're accepting the inevitable mistakes made by others, but should compare it to ideals in various ways in order to improve it. Otherwise, thinking like "money is happiness" will arise, though there is no sense of money being fundamental to someone being happy across time periods and geographical location. [quote]So wait, let me get this straight. You're saying that the "fanciful idea" (or even the mere concept) of a philosopher king is useful and practical and applicable to the real world? A flexible and kind mind is a great thing to have, but you don't need philosophy to cultivate that.[/quote]You know, I've been considering your use of the word concept, and I'm not sure if you accurately apply the same terminology to scientific theories. Sure, they seem to work for us now, but we're the ones who put them in place, not nature. As is often true, contradictions will be found and new scientific conceptions will be put in their place. Science is constantly being torn down and replaced with new things that may be tried for a while before being thrown away. What I'm saying is.. if you say you can't depend on concepts to be accurate then you can't depend on science either. Might as well accept that it's only telling us psychological attributes of the human mind and be on your way. [quote]I don't ascribe to the active study of either philosophy or religion, yet I don't go through blind speculation or wholly personal belief. I don't, and no one else needs to, either. The active study of philosophy is not necessary to cultivate a strong mind.[/quote]Strong psychological states of mind come about from being able to accurately react within this world, something that can be discussed and grown by way of philosophy. You don't have to consciously study philosophy to have a strong mind, but that's not to say that studying philosophy won't produce this same effect. [quote]And Syk3, other "distinguished" areas of study differ from philosophy in the respect that while both exist to carry on the knowledge of previous generations, philosophy exists [i]only for that purpose[/i], whereas something like biochemistry has a use readily applicable to the real world.[/QUOTE]Haha, well if you say so, but see above. EDIT: So let's recap real quick. Your argument is something like:[/size] [list] [*]Philosophy is ultimately useless because it has no real-world practical value, remaining as knowledge passed down through the ages though it's just kind of sitting there. [/list]And my premises can be summed up as: [list=1] [*]What is considered practical and worthwhile is itself a philosophical question. [*]Philosophy already divides itself as theoretical and practical, the practical side being things like happiness, morality, and politics. [*]Science was not distinguished from philosophy up until the 18th century. [*]Philosophy is the foundation of Western societies, which eventually split into other subjects, and has changed the course of history many times by a few individuals questioning reality. [*]Beliefs of philosophical concepts influence perception (such as Copernicus and his heliocentric solar system), and perception is used when performing practical actions. [*]This message board utilizes philosophy by holding a place for logical argument. [*]Most people have philosophical problems, in dealing with death, the existence of God, wondering why we're here, etc. [*]Philosophy being timeless doesn't lower its value, it increases its importance in applying to everyone. [*]The study of philosophy and other humanities give us the knowledge and motivation to put our best work into practice. [*]An underlying philosophy for any subject is crucial to proficiency in it. [*]There are jobs other than just professor that relate to philosophy, such as departments of ethics, though why you should study something just to make money is beyond me. [*]You provide an example of a practical value which has roots in philosophical concept and study. [*]When not comparing current states of affair to ideals in order to provide improvement, you accept the inevitable mistakes of others. [*]Science, a typical contrast to philosophy, also deals with concepts that are waiting to be torn down and replaced with something better. [*]Strong psychological states of mind can come about from philosophical study. [/list]Ahh argumentation, how much we owe thee to philosophy.

I'm not really sure where you're going with the "2+2=4", but I know that mathematical theorists get into some deep territory when they can't assume a statement like this to be true. We went over it a little in a class I had last semester, but I can't really remember it all too well - it was mainly a quick discussion that one of the students shared with the teacher. We did use this as a more direct example in my moral theory class however, wherein it was used in contrast to moral truths. While how one knows that a given action is right or wrong is a question for moral theorists, how one comes to believe in the morality of the action is a question for psychologists. As such, how one knows that 2+2=4 is a question for mathematicians, and how one comes to believe this to be true is a question for psychologists. So as a purely philosophical question, there may be little we really have room to say. We could also take the route of asking why we perceive that 2 and 2 equals 4. That, I think, is due to the limitation of the fact that our bodies percieve space and time; that 4 preceeds 2 after adding 2 to it is something that we are able to logically conceptualize given the causal sequence of time, and the differentiation of objects through space. If our apparatus perceived neither time nor space, there could only be oneness, as Phaedrus has been speaking. One thing; not to be confused as something that comes before something else, but a simplicity that cannot be broken down. EDIT: In conclusion, I believe that Phaedrus is going to say something about how it may appear to equal 4 as we perceive it, but in fact it will always truly equal 1 in an unperceived reality. :p

My grandmother died about a month ago, and we were really close. I'll post part of the eulogy I wrote, and hopefully others might find comfort in it. [quote]No matter how much you prepare yourself? no matter how old the person? no matter how long the transition? no matter how many times you show you care? no matter how ready the person is to go ? it still hurts to lose someone you love. I feel like I?m slipping back and forth between a reality with [her], and the numb reality without her. It?s as if my heart wants to believe that she?s still here, but my brain is forced to correct it. Once we become accustomed to certain patterns in our lives, sewn with stronger and stronger threads as time goes on, to lose any piece is to lose part of ourselves. Death is exceptionally difficult to deal with for those left behind. Life itself is an axiom for us because it?s all we have ever known, thus it?s not possible to fully comprehend death when we can only compare it to its eternal opposite. Just as true, the lives of those around us since birth become axioms as well. We almost take it for granted that they are alive and that this is a basic truth, knowing no other personal reality. It becomes even harder to confront death when you don?t recognize it as part of the natural life process, but as something perpetually out of sight that usually only afflicts ?other people.? This seems obvious, but can be complicated to accept when it?s someone whom you knew and loved, and if there have been few people around you who passed. I believe that with each other we have many insights to share, and I hope to do that here today. One of the most important things we can do after someone passes on is to consider the values he or she held dear and attempt to incorporate them into our own lives. [I go on to explain various values she taught] Because it?s inevitable, should we be content to define our ?purpose of life? as merely that all life must end? Or is there a higher function we seem to reach for during our stay here? My friend Aristotle and I believe that we constantly try to structure our lives to be happy. The Greek word for happiness is Eudaimonea, but the translation doesn?t do justice to the size of the event. Eudaimonea is closer to describing a type of reflective happiness over the course of one?s lifetime. While [she] certainly was not happy dealing with the cancer that eventually took over her body, looking back at the positive ways she always dealt with events we have reason to believe that she has ultimately attained Eudaimonea. Whatever awaits her, we can rest assured that any physical pain she had from this world has now ceased. The ?survival? of death is a question on many of our minds lately. To me, this seems possible only if there were a substance within each of us that defined our character, such as a soul. The body would then simply be a person?s container, and they would separate upon destruction of the flesh. But even if this were so, it would be unlike anything we could imagine. To claim a separation of mind and body, one must recognize the crucial connection between the two. Given that the consciousness we have of our own existence comes to us through the senses, without something to do the sensing we would have neither consciousness nor experience. So? what is it that our bodies are sensing? Reality is not only steeped in having experience, but in how we experience. Our connection to the world is limited by the basic framework of our body, so with any other type of body we would perceive something entirely different. These infinite possible perceptions, and thus? realities, support the conclusion that one ultimate reality, outside experience altogether, must exist. In such a world, with no one there to conceptualize things like space and time, there would be a single, unifying existence free of causality. In other words, to die may be to become one with the world and with God. While you may no longer exist on this plane of reality, nothing can be said of your true state of being. If we take these philosophical ponderings further, a timeless true reality would mean that we are already with [her], and always have been. If nothing remains after death but an eternity of nothingness, we need not fear what we won?t be conscious through, and we need not fear inevitability. All that?s left to fear is the potential loss of value in a life we must make the most of while we have it. The meaning of life is to give meaning to it; the least we can do is share it with others while there?s time.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]I don't have unlimited time, again, so I may not be able to respond to everything.[/size] [size=2] [size=2]If someone else has written down what I think, without my knowledge of it, does that make it any less of a personal discovery? I have read many books that have spit my own thoughts back at me, but just because someone else mass-produced the words before I thought them doesn't make them any less mine. To read other philosophers may allow me to skip ahead to new wonders of thought, but I want to think them through myself, without their help. If I listen to other philosophers and accept their ideas, I'm robbing myself of the ability to think those things out for myself.[/size] [size=2]Science is not a seduction, it is something I find interesting, useful, and full of new possibilities. That, and I'm quite good at it. It will never be my focus. My focus is happiness for myself and my family. Everything else is a diversion, though worthwhile.[/size] [size=2]I know the beauty of philosophy, and had I let it, THAT is what would have seduced me. I could be swallowed up in it, forgetting my dreams and goals. No, I will not be a mad scientist, but I would make a very mad philosopher.[/size] [size=2]I've addressed philosophers already, but I will add something. If I were to be a philosopher, I would not want anybody to read my words. I would not publish my thoughts, as that would be like stealing my ideas into their heads (if that makes any sense). The one thing I would make public would be, "Don't listen to me, not a word! Think for yourself!"[/size] [size=2]What can be seen and learned of God is buried in His language, DNA, that makes us what we are. I hope to find Him and understand Him there. All things are physical, even the spiritual is just a misunderstood manifestation of the physical.[/size] [size=2]If I am deceived, I am deceived, but I do not believe this to be the case. There is no use arguing over what cannot be changed. I will live and act as I will.[/size] [size=2]The whole mirrors thing seems a lot like straight Sociology to me, and while Sociology has its uses, I'm not going to make a belief system out of it. In fact, you make all of Buddhism seem quite a bit like Sociology, are you aware of this?[/size] [size=2]Syk3, I'm sure there are many things in Philosophical writings that could help me, but I still don't want to be helped. I am happy developing and honing my own tools, and if they are not quite as sharp as the masters', well, I'm no master of philosophy.[/size] [size=2]T13M, you are correct in your talk of how humanity grows. However, I think philosophy doesn't grow. It changes and falls back into itself and melds, but there is no train of thought that can be achieved to move humanity even a step further than it already has been moved. We may build nations on philosophies, but just because it's new doesn't mean it's an improvement.[/size][/QUOTE]Philosophy is not an acceptance of ideas, it's a consideration of ideas. A philosopher relaying his thoughts won't be taking out the process of thinking for yourself, it will be a presentation of arguments that you can challenge yourself with against your current point of view. You shouldn't have to feel any less independent if you find yourself agreeing with what philosophers of the past of found. That's fine. There's nothing that says you must take their whole worldview, but perhaps compare it to your own ideas and keep some while integrating others, then go to other philosophers and do the same thing. That way your ultimate philosophy, while composed of thoughts from others along the way through your own perception, is still distinct from everyone elses. It doesn't make philosophy "easy" at all, but allows yourself to open up and take paths that could make you even happier than you can do by yourself. I understand what you're trying to do, to come up with things on your own, but what makes philosophy special, over science for example? Why read science books, or take science classes, if that takes out part of the fun of discovering these scientific truths for yourself? Beyond this, I like your idea of philosophizing for yourself, but it seems to me that it could easily support an ignorance, whereas when faced with someone who has studied philosophy and formed a view from various theories, you'll try to hold onto your own simply because it's your own. You must be willing to change if you feel that you hear a better understanding of something, but if you're avoiding other points of view then this becomes a bit silly.

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]The way I see it, philosophy exists only to pass on the knowledge of the previous generation onto the next generation so that this knowledge is not lost. It's one of those self-fulfilling/self-repeating studies. If you major in philosophy, [basically] the only job out there is a philosophy teacher/professor. What is philosophy? It's interesting to read about, especially things like the Allegory of the Cave, but ultimately useless aside from creating your personal beliefs.[/size][/QUOTE]Maybe you could expand on what you mean by "exists only to pass on the knowledge..." Just so that we can memorize the personal opinions of people long dead? Or literally passing on what we know to the future? If the former, hopefully I can answer that by simply defining philosophy; in the latter, how is that distinguished from other forms of study, unless you're trying to convince me that we can't actually use philosophy and we're just passing on ideas? lol Please please [i]please[/i] don't get caught up in the idea that major = job. From my experience this seems to be something they tell highschoolers going on to college so they see a reason to apply themselves other than to learn (oh what a horrible alternative), who find out when they get into the working world that unless the job they seek requires background study (such as medicine), the employers will hire them because they have a degree and are therefore [i]trainable[/i]. In my case, I'm also majoring in Psychology because I need to go on to Graduate school in order to get my therapist license, but if I didn't have that option I wouldn't worry about only majoring in Philosophy. And with philosophy, damn.. if you get good at that you become theoretically good at a wide range of other things, because you know how to think and how to apply yourself. Philosophy majors have been shown to have higher test scores across all subjects, whatever that means. I think I understand what you're trying to say - that in your opinion philosophy has no true practical value. What do you consider practical then, if you understand the meaning of philosophy? Philosophy is often confused as being lots of pretty concepts flying around that people test their logic on, but it should not be defined as merely metaphysical abstractions. What about obtaining happiness? Morality? Political structure? Do you see all of these things as useless goals to study? What is worthwhile, then? Having been brought up in a highly rational society, I suppose you may say science? The fact is that until the 18th century there was no division between philosophy and what we call science; Newton himself published his book as "Principles of Natural Philosophy." Philosophy is the basis of knowledge for Western civilization, and as such other forms of study have evolved down the hierarchy; you can apply it to subjects like psychology, science, medicine, and the rest by [i]connecting[/i] what you're learning to meaning and practice. And even as personal beliefs, these should not be underestimated. Beliefs are among the many things that influence perception, and perception influences how one lives their life. If by studying philosophy your life is changed in how you see and understand things, that has transcended personal opinion and is no way "useless". This entire message board is steeped in philosophy, by virtue of the logic of argument. As someone who studies philosophy, I believe that the subject is the most important thing that anyone can study during your lifetime. That's not to say that I have a problem with people studying what interests them, but I have a hard time accepting that you never have philosophical problems (why does the universe bother existing, is space infinite, how can I be a good person, why are we here, etc.). Yes, you can never know these things for sure, and that's a difficult point to come to in philosophy; but by discussion you can understand that you come a little closer, acting as if you cannot accept that no ultimate knowledge will be learned. [quote name='Adahn][size=2']That's why I'm not a philosophy major. I've found something that interests me, and created my own philosophy about it. I'm not going to study other philosophers, because they don't care about the things I care about. What makes their ideas worth studying, anyway? How are they better than me? Sure, they're interesting, and they may give me breakthroughs in thought, but why search outside myself when I can search within myself for answers?[/size][/quote] And that's fine to follow what interests you, as I mentioned before. How do you defend a lack of interest in learning, though? Do you know for sure that other philosophers don't care about what you do, and how do you know that you won't learn something from them? They don't pretend to be better than you, but if you don't apply the Principle of Charity and entertain their ideas then you seem to be saying in some way that we should study your ideas instead. The philosophers help us not only in providing interesting information, but in showing us that when looking outside ourselves we can obtain rational tools with which we can alter our perceptions and search within ourselves even easier, and go even further. I have a quote from one book I read that sums up a similar belief I have about how one should approach philosophers: "What I am trying to understand is the world in which I find myself, and myself. I read the great philosophers because they enlighten me about what I am trying to understand, often giving me insights of enormous depth that I could not have arrived at without them. But in the final analysis what matters to me is not what they believe but what I believe." -Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher EDIT: [quote name='The13thMan][color=DarkOrange][font=Century Gothic]When i think of philosophy changing the world i also think of one philosopher saying that in the ideal society the philosophers will rule the society...unfortunately this does not always happen. Does anybody know who it was that said that?[/font'][/color][/quote] Probably Plato from his Republic, though Phaedrus was onto this first with his references of Philosopher Kings.

[quote name='The13thMan][color=DarkOrange][font=Century Gothic]My room mate loves philosophy and minors in it, only because there are no good jobs in philosophy. He would major in it, but money's too important.[/font'][/color][/quote]Haha, wait until he takes an ethics class. That desire for money will float away and he be majoring in it before you know it. :] Man, I hate getting caught up with friends about them thinking that money is happiness, and please don't make me do it here. ~_~ And anyway, might as well pursue what you're interested in now; most jobs are going to be looking at the degree, not the major. My Ancient Philosophy course this semester settled on this definition of philosophy: "the use of reason to understand the world and human beings within it." Feel free to add to it if you like, but recognize beforehand whether it falls under this broad definition already. Even in cases of irrationality, philosophers attempt to use rational concepts to include that in their understanding. The experience that I've had with the study of philosophy so far has been a breath of fresh air, similar to how Phaedrus here felt (note references in his name to Plato and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance!). I didn't know much about philosophy before coming to college, but I took a moral theory class on a whim and was astounded to find people actually taking the time to study [i]life[/i]. Questioning had never been something I really had the chance to do when I was younger, and to offer my thoughts on topics like what is good, God's existence, and the meaning of life gave me a new life in a sense. Upon returning from college for the first time, I found to my delight numerous philosophy books around the house from when my mom had majored in it in college (I've since accumulated about 40 or so books, but have been gathering faster than I can read, lol). I attempted to study and read it at every opportunity, starting with a few introductory books and television programs that gave me a good start on major Western thinkers. It became clear pretty early on that this is what I've be searching for to fill my void, and I declared Philosophy as my major about two months into Freshman year. This semester I'm taking an Ancient Philosophy course (which becomes Modern Philosophy next semester) and a Philosophy of Religion course (distinguished from Theology or Comparative Religion, this discusses monotheistic concepts and proofs and the foundation for going into religion to begin with). I don't pretend to be an expert on philosophy by any means, nor do I hold my current beliefs absolute, but I've attempted to live and breath the study as best I can so far. Hey Phaedrus, just so we can get everyone on the same page, could you define your "dogma" term? EDIT: I believe in objectivity, not necessarily "absolute" as I understand your meaning. But if you don't believe in absolutes, please don't use this as reason to follow the opposite extreme: relativity - the idea that what we say has no meaning, we're just spurting a bunch of "stuff", unable to compare to other "stuff" to argue which is better. In other words, if you believe in argument, you may not be as relativist as you think. [font=Verdana]Remember: [b]If no absolute truth exists, then such a statement must surely be absolute. [/b][/font][quote name='The13thMan][color=DarkOrange][font=Century Gothic]What is philosophy? The way i see it, philosophy is what came from asking why. To be a philosopher you must question all things. Especially question what's already been accepted as a truth. I believe they cannot be a truth to a person until he or she has went through the process of asking why in their own minds. You cannot believe in God because other people do, you must ask yourself if you truly believe in him and then ask why. [/font'][/color][/quote] You have to be smart about questioning, though. If you leave nothing unquestioned, you won't be able to get very far at all. You'll become stuck in an endless loop of word definitions and study of the most minut things in order to use a word "truth" that, frankly, gets further away the more you learn. Wouldn't truth be absolute? Or by truth do you mean knowledge of such, in that case a belief of truth? By claiming this, you've delved into psychological mindsets. Sure you should certainly question, but there are things that we take to also be true through a passing down of knowledge or a feeling that it must be true. There are many ways to perceive truth, but it seems to me that if we are after the actual concept our brain is limited to the way the world appears to us. BTW, nice quote in your signature. I don't know how much you know about Schopenhauer, and I know little for the record, but I think I understand what he's saying there about basic will of the universe that we cannot control.

My God, no thread about this anime yet. If you've seen it, then shame on you. :p Let's see, how do I put this without making the anime sound ridiculous? Well, Yakitate is about.. baking bread. Yeah. Wonderful, delicious, beautiful bread. And the great thing about this anime is that while the premise may sound lame, it's very conscious of this fact and often presents itself as seriously as any other anime, with the result of being absolutely [i]halarious[/i]. The introduction to the episodes pretty much sums it up: "There's English bread, German bread, and French bread, but Japan's bread, [i]Japan[/i], does not exist. In that case, there's no choice but to create it. This story is a serious, biographical ballad of a boy who possesses Solar Hands, Azuma Kazuma, who will create a Japanese bread made by and for the Japanese people, which can be presented to the world proudly." The word [i]Japan[/i] is actually a pun (they're very fond of puns on the show) - [i]pan[/i] is bread in Japanese, so [i]Japan[/i] can be directly translated into Japanese bread. :p As you may guess, the show is somewhat encultured, but the sub that I watch is great at providing little references at the top of the screen to explain whether the dialogue is referring to history, language puns, pop culture, etc. Also, the Solar Hands that they mention in the intro is this cool feature alluded to a lot, where a person's hands are naturally very warm and therefore good for making bread ferment quickly. ;) If anyone is interested in watching it, I think it's still going on, and it's up to 66 episodes so far (I'm up to 32, though I watch an episode or so every day). Pretty impressive for an anime about baking bread, huh? XD

After watching mainly dubs for a long time, I've recently started to seclude myself primarily to the subtitled version. This change largely comes from my desire to learn Japanese, and since I'll be studying it in the Fall I want to surround myself by the language so I can be used to recognizing various sounds, words, and phrases for when I get into the formal process. ^_^ Not that I'm trying to learn the whole language by watching anime, but I feel that the transition would be somewhat easier. :p When it comes down to it, I don't really mind either way. Of course, I can have no sympathy for companies that change an anime significantly in the dubbing process, so I'm referring to when only the voices are altered (though perhaps you may say that's a hopeless ideal! ;)). The thing that I like about watching it dubbed is that I can do various multitasking while it's playing, like type on the computer, draw, or just in general lay down with my eyes closed or something, lol. I do look at the screen every once in a while, but in those cases it's not my top priority, in contrast to subs where attention is mandatory. There are certainly times when voices seem out of place in English, though for the most part I've found that I have a bigger tolerance for that than a lot of people, haha. When I got to college, I was hit with the realization that by default, we were going to be watching subbed anime at our campus club. I've never really had anything against subtitled versions in the past, but since I'm kind of a slow reader there are times when I'd miss something or just wish I could put more concentration into [i]watching[/i] it (or less overall?), I suppose. I also started to get into fansubs and such, which are obviously going to be subtitled whether I like it or not. ^.^; It really seems to depend on who's subbing an anime for if it's going to be good, be that in timing, spelling, or general references; I don't have any favorites in companies, but I can discern specific series. Yakitate! Japan is a great example of good subtitles, while the latter half of Hunter x Hunter was rather poorly done (though both anime are awesome). And then for licensed companies, whoever did the subbing on my Kenshin DVDs needs to be shot. :D Sometimes it seems to me that dubbed anime is unfairly targeted a lot of the time by so-called "hardcore" fans, heh. Yes, it's actually becoming less common to find that dubbing is associated with atrocious editing. And yes, by watching subtitles you're not miraculously free of translation issues; if something is lost in the translation, then the only way to truly watch it is in raw. Would I also be correct in assuming that Japanese voice actors do not regularly work with the original manga creator to portray these characters the way they were "intended to be"? Maybe Japanese actors work harder to fit emotions, maybe not - that seems that it should be on a case-by-case basis. I believe that the biggest thing at work here is what you're used to. If you really like watching subbed, then dubbed may seem out of place, and vice versa. If you really get into a series with the characters sounding a certain way, then an immediate change might disgust you. And then there's the argument of whether as English-speaking individuals whether we can even know whether certain Japanese voices sound better than others, but I think we probably have the ability to distinguish at least subtley.

Haha, I find this pretty ironic, but.. I'm in an anime marathon right now at my college, looking for something to do while we watch a movie I already own anyway. It's a pretty big event that our Anime Society holds every semester, starting yesterday at 6 pm and ending today at 6 pm (right now it's 2 am), and consisting of anime that officers choose (myself included as club Secretary), the audience chooses, and pre-chosen anime through picking a various genre. And if you get tired of anime, we do watch some AMVs and play DDR in the other room. I'd say these marathons we hold are largely a success, but in the only other one I went to I failed to stay awake the whole time, haha. I'll probably go back to my dorm at some point this time if I get really tired, but right now I'm alright. Your marathon reminds me of last year when I went to an anime club instead of my senior prom, heh. It was totally worth it, I think.

Would you be able to clarify what you want a bit further? If it's a simple anime drawing you want, any drawing, I suggest a search engine. If it's something specific that you would like to see drawn from your own head, people will need much more to go on to understand the anime drawing that you want.

Also, I'll note that if Tsurigane wants to use these in her signature, the animation is going to be a bit big, dimension-wise. We allow banners that are 500 x 100, and this is 150 in height.

Is this just for a banner, or do you want this altered version drawn?

Wait, no. He has another thread where it's already been done. I guess the question is why is there two? I'll close this anyway though.

It looks like you already have that banner, so does that mean that you no longer need this banner?

narutosgirl, this is not the place for you to post stories. Check the main forum page and see if there's a forum that is actually intended for that. Plus this thread is from 2004!

I'm just letting you know that the first one doesn't come up; all that's shown is an Angelfire hotlink image, so you may want to upload it seperately. Oh, and you don't have to worry about HTML when posting, so things like aren't necessary. :)

Just wanted to post so you notice that double posting is something we do not allow on the forums. ~_^

I'd just like to note that we expect constructive criticism here like anywhere else. [i]Especially [/i]here, in fact, because otherwise it throws off the order if that spam post is deleted and everything gets confusing. lol So yeah, if you post comments that aren't very in depth nor help the artist, then they will be deleted. If you do respond to constructive criticism, please continue to discuss the points rather than saying "thanks a lot!" or your post will be deleted. If you see a response to constructive criticism, [b]DON'T CRITIQUE THAT PERSON'S SIGNATURE[/b]; go to the last person who commented on someone else's banner set. Thanks, and please skip over this post.

[quote name='AngeloftheRain']The sixth one looks like my cousin! Kudos to you![/quote]Hey there, Angel. In Art Studio, the one thing that we ask for more than anything else is practicing high quality posts of constructive criticism. This comment doesn't seem enough in helping the artist to improve, so I highly recommend you read the sticky thread in the main forum.

[QUOTE=RedSkyCoffee][size=1] I love it! they look real nice :D I can't see that ever happenig though xD [/size][/QUOTE]Hey, RedSky. While the enthusiasm is appreciated, it would be good to get a few solid constructive criticism points in there for the artist to take to heart and improve with. :)

I want to make a note here that this is the third instance that a moderator has had to tell you, [i]in this thread[/i], that double posting is against the rules, and the second time that I'm telling you. Make sure you read the rules immediately, because we won't be giving warnings in the future. :)