Philosophy

[Guest Phaedrus]

This is a very daunting thread to start, because it's hard to know where to begin.

Philosophy is a word used in many different ways. Many people use the word in such a casual sense, something along the lines of, "That's my philosophy on such-and-such a subject," as if the word means [i]opinion[/i].

In another way, there's the Western philosophic heritage, with all its big names, like Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, and on and on.

In yet another way, I think each person is philosophical at some point in their lives. They [i]question[/i]--they ask "What is God?" "Why do I exist?" "Who am I?" And they seek silent counsell with themselves, or seek debate with others in order to pave the way closer to that thing called truth.

Also there's the Eastern philosophical heritage, which I know even less about. I would personally say that buddhism, and some other Eastern religions, aren't even religions but simply philosophy, too.

I've only taken an Intro to Philosophy course, and it dealt almost exclusively with Western Philosophy.

When I was in my junior year of high school, I saw the world in a very mechanistic sense. I'd grown up here in the USA, in the Western world, and thus had been given a rational, scientific mind. This left me with very little to live for. I was very, very depressed. However, sometime around then, I started to run, and began to realize the immense potential of my mind as well as just as a human in general.

It wasn't until around last year in college, my very first year here, that a true awakening really began. I sat in my Civs to 1500's class, and we were going over the vedic texts and the origins of the Indian civilzation. We began discussing Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

What followed was pretty startling. I'd heard of the Buddhist ideas of [i]karma[/i] and reincarnation before, and a few various others. But we went a bit more in-depth than I'd gone previously, and what I learned about Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism made a lot of sense. The reason it was startling is because, all my life, I'd had these same thoughts--that to exist is to suffer, and we suffer because we desire, and in order to stop suffering we have to stop desiring and on and on--but I'd just never had the ability to express it, the ability to [i]experience[/i] it. As the teacher talked about this "fatalistic religion" (as he put it) I heard words that had been built into me, ideas built into me--and it was all just there, right in our textbook, right on the board.

Like I said, startling.

From there, I took my Intro to Philosophy course. It was enlightening to a degree, but seeing as it was a Western philosophy course it alienated me to an extent. Because, you see, the Western love of [i]rationality[/i] is all about systematizing, organizing, abstracting, and defining. Even before this philosophy course, I'd been alienated by being forced to go to Catholic church and Catholic church school.

Anyway, a member here, who may or may not still be around, Syk, turned me onto a book called [i]Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/i]. The book was way over my head quite a bit of the time, but it allowed me to grow so much. It laid down the seeds of my frame of mind and has allowed me to change for the better.

What followed from there was a lot of thinking on my own, on threads of thought left ruminating from reading [i]ZAMM[/i].

So now, I shall lay out (some of?) my philosophical mindset--

Firstly, to exist is to suffer. And we suffer because we desire. So in order to stop suffering we have to stop desiring. But in order to stop desiring we have to desire to not desire, so we are still desiring. Thus the only way that's left to go is to stop desiring what it's possible to stop desiring, and only desire what is necessary to desire.

This is the middle path--in another word, buddhism.

Next, the world is full of dogmas. This language is a dogma, a laceration, it is symbols expressed onto reality (reality being all things--you, me, I, the sun, the stars, the universe, cells, atoms, and so forth in this manner). Religions are dogmas. Buddhism [i]itself[/i] is a dogma, but (in my eyes) a dogma that is closer to being no dogma than many others. Science is a dogma, an abstraction of reality. Our very human form itself is a symbol expressed onto reality.

The problem that arises with these dogmas is that people cling to them [i]too[/i] tightly. They [i]desire[/i] to have understanding, desire to have a reason for their existence. What ends up happening, though, is that what they cling to are truth-dressed shimmering lies. That is to say that these abstractions of reality are deceiving, that they dress in the garments of truth and glimmer, but they are really lies.

That's not to say that there's no truth within, say, Christianity, or science, or anything for that matter. What I'm getting at, though, is that none are greater than each other, and all will deceive you more than give you truth and knowledge. Thus you can't let yourself fall into any one dogma. You've got to let go of them, as hard as it can be.

And when you let go. . .well, I can't explain it in words. It's an [i]astounding[/i] feeling. When you desire as little as possible. . .when you [i]experience this[/i], you feel like you now understand so much more.

The terrible thing is that once this happens, you cannot make it happen to others. They have to find it themself, in their own way. Once you experience this, once you know this, then you simultaneously don't know it, because it's as natural and unvoluntary as breathing.

The only thing I've found which I cannot deny is something very speculative in nature. Some call it "God," others call it "Allah," some "Truth," it's been called "Quality," and many, many other names. This thing I cannot deny is what I'm having trouble explaining to you right now. . .but my existence proves that it is, even if it's not. This "thing" (it's not even a thing, really), once you try to start grasping it, flows through you and out of you in an unexplainable way, just like water flowing between your hands.

So in a way, I can't deny "God's" existence. But I don't really call "it" God. By saying God I'm immediately inferring the Judeo-Christian one, who's omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent. Which I don't think this "thing" is.

In a way, I'm very agnostic or Socratic. Socrates went about Greece questioning peoples' dogmas and beliefs and professions. He'd ask them what their job was, and end up tearing what they thought it was to pieces, until they had nothing left. Some buddhist sects do this as well. That's part of what buddhism is about--letting go, stopping desire.

I don't know what this thing is, but it can't be denied. I'm not willing to give it characteristics. I don't know if it's all good. As Descartes' evil dream argument gets at, how am I to know if I'm not deceived, and God is in fact completely evil, and all the beauty I see is just a part of this evilness, this thievery? I cannot know, and I cannot assume God is all-good or all-bad or all-anything, for that matter.

The way I look at things, to sum it up, is very Platonic. Plato dwelled in gross generalizations, and his pupil, Aristotle, was alienated by this. Aristotle, who I am alienated by in a reflecting-like manner (I was raised Aristotleian and have become Platonic because of it), dealt with individuals, specifics, and was systematic. He was one of the figures that paved the road for what the Western world is today.

What he was apart of making, what I will call rationality, has leaked into so much of the US's society, and Western society in general. It's everywhere--it's in the art of writing, it's in each and every class I've taken at school, it's in how our cities look and how people are in the US. I see it endlessly, and seeing as I'm Platonic, it's been very hard to come to terms with.

I try to see beyond this limiting flesh; beyond these limiting senses. I realize, and have to remind myself, that I am just one being of many. I am a sharded being, and we are all sharded beings, we are all pieces of reality. In fact right now someone is dying, someone is being born, a star is exploding, a supernova is blasting through the gulf of space, an atom is exchanging protons and electrons, a cell is dividing expontentially--just on and on and on. The great vastness of this reality overwhelms me, and I realize how little we as men know, and how haughty and arrogant we can be in thinking that we know so much.

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Well, first off i'd like to say that you did not really ask us any questions in which we could start a discussion. So all i'm left to do is comment on your post and try to add to it on my own.

Philosophy is relatively new to me. I'm a freshman in college and have only known about philosophy for maybe 2-3 years now. I've never taken a course in philosophy so i don't know too much about Plato, Kant, or Socrates. I can only be presented with an idea and give my opinion on it. 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. Anyways, we often have good debates about philosophy and apply it to politics and religion. It's a lot of fun. We also have very different opinions. I'm liberal, he's republican; i'm agnostic, he's christian. So we always disagree.

Now, i'd love to get into a philosophical debate with ya...we just have to find something to disagree upon.

You claim that these "dogmas" are all or mostly lies. I ask you, what gives you the right to be so judgemental? It seems to me that you've even looked down upon those who have strong faith in dogmas. Another question is why do you believe they are all lies? Are there any dogmas that you believe in?

That's all i got....try and think up something good to talk about. Ask me a question or something. We can have fun with this.

Later.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Phaedrus]

It's a good point that I really never left any room for discussion. . .

Well, let us start at the beginning.

What is philosophy?

I've given a few ways it can be looked at. Which one is the more true? Is philosophy something everyone does, or is it a systematic hiearchy of terms and definitions, ideas and argument over them?

Well, as far as your critique of my mindset. . .I don't think I have the right to be so judgemental, but to be so questioning is just in my nature. And I don't look down on people who grasp onto their dogmas, unless of course they look at all others who don't believe in their dogma as lost or useless etc.

My frame of mind. . .my ideas of things are not absolute. They're what work for me, however, and it's what I've got.

The closest thing I have to a dogma is probably buddhism. I'm not strictly anything, but a while ago I realized I had been clinging to buddhism too much, and I think I still am to an extent. But I'm slowly letting go of everything. And it's not apathy or anything like that. I care about all things, it's just that I don't cling to it. I don't clutch on to the point of it becoming an extreme. . .or at least I hope not.

[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. 2+2=4 only if that's what makes sense to you.

As for the whole casual use of the word philosophy, i don't particularly like it, but i'll accept it. The word philosophy itself is not limited to one single meaning.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you believe in absolutes?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Phaedrus]

I have an interesting answer to the question of, "Does 2 + 2 = 4." Perhaps I'll get into it later.

And no, I don't believe in absolutes.

If you remember what I said in my beginning post, you'll know I believe the opposite. I don't think anything can truly be understood, at least not now, with our limited humanness. Perhaps in the future. . .because, you see, science is already employing tools in order to bend our senses and improve our lacking senses to see things we've never seen or to understand things better than we've ever been able to. . .

I find it pointless to try and make sense out of things. But yet I do it anyway. . .

Basically, I've been undergoing metacognition as of late. That is, thinking about thinking--trying to change how I think. Because the way I've been taught to think is to lump things into two categories--good or bad, right or wrong, and so on.

[Syk3]

[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.

[Guest Phaedrus]

[QUOTE=Syk3]

Hey Phaedrus, just so we can get everyone on the same page, could you define your "dogma" term?[/quote]

Hm, definitions. Definitions are hard things. I hate defining things. Nothing can be defined with precision. However, I can give the gist of what I mean.

A dogma is a system of attitudes and ideas bolted and nutted together. A dogma tells you how you should live, why you should live, what you live for, and so on and so forth. Christianity as a dogma, some if its ideas--God is good, all-powerful, all-seeing. Humans are full of sin. Christ allows us to go to heaven. Heaven and hell exist and the "bad" go to hell, the "good" go to heaven. Hell is brimstone and fire, heaven is clouds and angels. A good person doesn't kill, loves his neighbor--and so on (the ten commandements). The holy trinity. The bible. And so on--this is what is contained in the dogma "Christianity."

If you question dogmas enough, if you ruthelessly try to get truth from them, you will find that while there is truth there, there is not enough that it should become your truth, become the method by which you live.

There are answers everywhere. And these answers only beget more questions.

[quote]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.
.[/QUOTE]

I know that capital T Truth is out there, I know there is something absolute out there, but as far as I can reason as a human being I cannot give percision to this absolute thing. So I have kind of a mix of relativity and absolutism. I think all that humans do, at this point in time, all they seek to achieve, is relative. Throughout our history there've been men who step in and say this. Socrates, Plato, Einstein and so forth.

Truth isn't even called Truth, it has no name, it has no real substance to me; it's an abyss. It has no form for me, because I cannot grasp it. I cannot cling to it. It is out there, somewhere, unable for me to comprehend. I am relative, but this thing is not. Whatever it is.

A poet once wrote something along the lines of, "Truth is beauty; beauty is truth/ That is all ye need know on this Earth."

I would like to have precise understanding, but it is my lot as a human being to not have such a thing.

In a sense, as a human being, we have a comprimise.

Well, as far as I see it, there are two ultimate goals of mankind:

1) The Western one--Due to its focus on individuals, the end meaning of mankind's improvement is to perfect our form and become like Gods, knowing everything, understanding everything, and completely isolated from all things. Living separate existences within our highly developed forms.

2) The Eastern one--Due to its focus on collectives, the end meaning of mankind's improvement is to let go of our minds and our form and become like a primordial soup, becoming one with reality once again, without a consciousness. Living an undualistic (unsplit), unfragmented existence where one is all and all are one. Then there will be no pain, no suffering, no difference, only sameness, only undualisticness.

As humans, we have a comprimise of these two extremes.

We can be isolated when we want to be. We can sit alone and think. We can think within our minds and get lost within the abstraction of "ourself" and all contained therein.

We can also be together when we want to be. A man and a woman, many friends hanging out, forming cliques, forgetting the sense of self and becoming a whole.

Knowing this, isn't our existence a beautiful one? The main problem is all the suffering, the pain, which we have to overcome. The isolation, the sameness--we teeter between both, lost in the suffering until we finally come to terms with it all.

So accepting life in this vein, who needs absolute truth right now? Right now, this second as I live, this very moment--there, it has passed--I just want to experience its beauty. Because the beauty shows me the greater truth of all of this.

As far as your definition of philosophy. Anything with "rational" in it immediately catches my bad side. We needn't be rational in order to philosophize. Logic, the system of the system, is so arbitrary. As a human being it isn't my nature to be so systematized. I am meant to be spontaneous and lively. . .So I disagree with rationality wthin philosophy. Of course it's in there to an extent, but it isn't so notable that it deserves especial mention in the definition.

[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]

[Adahn]

[size=2]I would have loved to study philosophy all the time. I would have enjoyed it to my heart's content. I might even have enough talent to pull it off as a job, but I don't want it for a job. Whatever I could write, however beautiful it could be, however it could change people, it would be nothing in my eyes. Instead, I work philosophy into my life. I weave it into my thoughts and desires, I merge with it without becoming it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I'm a Cell and Molecular Biology major. I want to understand DNA. I see it as God's language. I am also not ashamed of messing with it. I suppose a metaphor could nicely sum up my thoughts.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]God is the writer of a programming language, DNA, and has created some amazing programs. I want to learn the language, but I do not aspire to become greater than God in its understanding. Who can out-program someone genius enough to write a language like this? I want to read bases, and see the amino acids. I want to recognize genes, and the syntaxes that make them into subroutines. I want to see up to the quaternary configuration as the proteins form. I want to know their active sites, their functions. I want to look at a genome and see the organism. I may need to use or create some very complex equipment and programs to even begin, and just the difficulty of that is a testament to God and my inferiority.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Sorry if I rambled, I don't have much time, and I have to get to class.[/size]

[Guest Phaedrus]

[QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]I would have loved to study philosophy all the time. I would have enjoyed it to my heart's content. I might even have enough talent to pull it off as a job, but I don't want it for a job. Whatever I could write, however beautiful it could be, however it could change people, it would be nothing in my eyes. Instead, I work philosophy into my life. I weave it into my thoughts and desires, I merge with it without becoming it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I'm a Cell and Molecular Biology major. I want to understand DNA. I see it as God's language. I am also not ashamed of messing with it. I suppose a metaphor could nicely sum up my thoughts.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]God is the writer of a programming language, DNA, and has created some amazing programs. I want to learn the language, but I do not aspire to become greater than God in its understanding. Who can out-program someone genius enough to write a language like this? I want to read bases, and see the amino acids. I want to recognize genes, and the syntaxes that make them into subroutines. I want to see up to the quaternary configuration as the proteins form. I want to know their active sites, their functions. I want to look at a genome and see the organism. I may need to use or create some very complex equipment and programs to even begin, and just the difficulty of that is a testament to God and my inferiority.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Sorry if I rambled, I don't have much time, and I have to get to class.[/size][/QUOTE]

You're wrong to say philosophers don't care about what you care about. There is a philosopher out there who has already written parts of what you think down. You have a very close-minded approach to the pursuit of truth. . .

You seem seduced by science. Science, the study of pragmatic truth, is a worthy area of focus. . .but you make many assumptions.

However, the beauty you see in science--I understand it. It is quite beautiful. However, beauty is everywhere, and outside of science it exists too. In philosophy it exists. . .

Philosophy isn't necessarily just the study of big names, of scholarly men who used multisyllabic words and strange words. That's just the Western heritage of it, and even within the Western heritage there's men who don't fit this stereotype of Western philosophers you seem to have.

So, who is this "God" you speak of? I really don't know who or what you're talking about at all. You assume this "God" has made everything. Do you know this? Or do you just believe this? Is belief enough for you to live by? I'd rather pursue truth and knowledge.

As far as wanting to become greater than "God". . .well, as a philosopher I understand that it's impossible for me to out-do such a thing. I'm just as in awe of things as you are, but I look at the big picture.

For all you know, perhaps God is the sum of all things in reality. We're made up of cells and atoms, science has taught us, correct? So following this, perhaps we are just God's atoms or God's cells, as are all the animals on this earth. Perhaps if you could take all the things in reality, just [i]everything[/i] at once and see it all at once, you'd see God. Perhaps all the things in reality--us, the moon, the ocean, this and that and that in all its infinitude--is God.

Perhaps this God, if it programmed this DNA, did so as an evil genius, as Descartes put forward. Perhaps you're deceived in your assumptions. . .

I don't think you have to study philosophy, but you've said you'd like to have studied it, and that philosophy is important to you. . .yet you're unwilling to put aside your dogmas and truly let other ideas fill you.

"But why search outside myself when I can search within myself for answers." Why? Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real. And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours.

I used to be egotistical, in the vein you are. I wouldn't call yours straight-out egotisim, but you are quite stuck within yourself and your dogmas as far as I can tell. Everything was about "me," and I cared nothing for anything else. Part of buddhism is a realization that your "self" is an unreal thing, and that the only real "self" that there is is a type of higher consciousness, a collection of everything.

Why would you seek answers outside yourself? Well, because the answers are outside yourself. "You" is just an abstraction. All things are more connected than you'd like to think. "You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.

[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]


If philosophy is ultimately useless, then what is wholly useful?

It's true that the only job as a philosophy major is likely a teacher/ professor.

Honestly, if I didn't have philosophy, I wouldn't be talking to you right now. Philosophy is all I am. . .so if it's ultimately useless, then I guess I may as well be dead now. But I'm not dead, because I know it is useful.

Philosophy is more than personal beliefs. You're defining philosophy in a very casual sense. While it contains many personal beliefs, none of these personal beliefs are strictly held onto. The philosophic mind is willing to accept any "personal belief" and question and question it till truth comes forth. While I may have my ideas and assumptions of reality, that doesn't mean I'm not willing to let them go and seek to understand someone else's. . .

Philosophy is more than just something passed on. And tell me, what isn't passed on? As men we pass onto our children what we're going to lose, since we're doomed to die, since we're mortal. Genes are passed on, and ideas are too, and so is everything. We nurse this world and hand it off to the next generation, like the handing off of a torch.

Philosophy is useful. . .if people were more equipped with a philosophic mind, it could improve the human condition. Plato presented the idea of a philosopher-king, and this philosopher-king had to go through rigorous years and years of learning and training before they were made philosopher-king. Not just studying philosophy or thinking or "forming personal beliefs," but also pursuing sports and games, and so many other things too.

His idea was that the wise should rule, but that to have a ruler, the best there could be, was a very tricky thing. It's a fanciful idea, this philosopher-king idea, akin to a utopia. But what he laid out is possible to some extent. . .

I'm not saying a philosopher should rule the world. I'm merely trying to show you that philosophy is useful, that a philosophic mindset is a very healthy mind that has great magnamity, great kindness, great flexibility.

It's been centuries and centuries, maybe even millenia, and mankind is still at odds over [i]religion[/i]. It's quite funny. Wars are still raging over that thing. . .and it's creating endless difference. Religion is something passed down too, but religion is problematic, since it gives someone an unhealthy mindset. Instead of giving all things a good go, the believer believes their religion to be true above all. . .and is given a certain set of ideas and attitudes. . .and this only creates endless strife.

We're all fundamentally human. And as much as religions try to claim they're so different, they are really so much the same. . .with minor tweaks in attitudes and precepts here and there.

Philosophy looks at the big picture, but it doesn't do so through blind speculation or wholly personal belief, like religion does. . .

Anyway, I digress. You should give philosophy a better chance. But it's not my place to force it on you--you'll find it out your own way if you want to try and understand things to a greater degree.

[Syk3]

[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.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Syk3']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.[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I can understand and agree with ya there. Selective questioning is what i'd call it. Only question what is worth answering. Hah, but i sure know what you're talking about. I've been stuck in paradoxes because of language many times, it's a bit annoying and a little funny. ^L^
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='Syk3']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.[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Thanx. The way i understand the quote is that man can do what he wishes although he cannot control what it is that he wants. Desire comes from the external, and one cannot control the external, only attempt to control the internal. I also saw the quote as refering to man's base instincts and inability to escape them.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
As far as your definition of philosophy. Anything with "rational" in it immediately catches my bad side. We needn't be rational in order to philosophize. Logic, the system of the system, is so arbitrary. As a human being it isn't my nature to be so systematized. I am meant to be spontaneous and lively. . .So I disagree with rationality wthin philosophy. Of course it's in there to an extent, but it isn't so notable that it deserves especial mention in the definition.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]We disagree here, a lot. I believe highly in rationality and value it above most all things. Rationality is very important to me and i try to apply it to all things in my life. Of course, i realize that sometimes spontaneity and emotion is preferred...funny thing is though that this realization was spawned from rationality. Though i don't want to come off cold or anything like that. I like to balance rationality with everything else.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Retribution]
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.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Useless if you can consider something that ultimately changes the world useless. Every person has their own philosophy in life, and those in power use that to change the world. Of course, it's hard to consider some world leaders, i'm not naming any names, to have any real deep understanding of philosophy.

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 name='Adahn']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?[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ah well, i've probably already said this in one way or another. But i think you're too self dependant. In my opinion, you should value the thoughts of other people and use them to discover more about yourself. The way i see it, mankind grows because we start where our ancestors left off. If all thought was lost when a man died and the next man after him had to start over we could only go as far as the first man could, if not only a bit further because of our own genetical features.

You should try to use both yourself and others to find your answers.

Ok, here's a question. If you do not believe in absolutes, do you believe in that absolutely? Also, are there not absolutes in let's say...mathematics? Is 2+2 not absolutely 4? Phaedrus, go ahead and go into whatever it was you held back about that. Though i'll laugh if it has anything to do with the book 1984. Cuz i know that's what i think about whenever i say 2+2=4. ^L^

Later.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[size=2]I don't have unlimited time, again, so I may not be able to respond to everything.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][Quote=Phaedrus][/size]
You're wrong to say philosophers don't care about what you care about. There is a philosopher out there who has already written parts of what you think down. You have a very close-minded approach to the pursuit of truth. . .

You seem seduced by science. Science, the study of pragmatic truth, is a worthy area of focus. . .but you make many assumptions.

However, the beauty you see in science--I understand it. It is quite beautiful. However, beauty is everywhere, and outside of science it exists too. In philosophy it exists. . .

Philosophy isn't necessarily just the study of big names, of scholarly men who used multisyllabic words and strange words. That's just the Western heritage of it, and even within the Western heritage there's men who don't fit this stereotype of Western philosophers you seem to have.

So, who is this "God" you speak of? I really don't know who or what you're talking about at all. You assume this "God" has made everything. Do you know this? Or do you just believe this? Is belief enough for you to live by? I'd rather pursue truth and knowledge.

As far as wanting to become greater than "God". . .well, as a philosopher I understand that it's impossible for me to out-do such a thing. I'm just as in awe of things as you are, but I look at the big picture.

For all you know, perhaps God is the sum of all things in reality. We're made up of cells and atoms, science has taught us, correct? So following this, perhaps we are just God's atoms or God's cells, as are all the animals on this earth. Perhaps if you could take all the things in reality, just [i]everything[/i] at once and see it all at once, you'd see God. Perhaps all the things in reality--us, the moon, the ocean, this and that and that in all its infinitude--is God.

Perhaps this God, if it programmed this DNA, did so as an evil genius, as Descartes put forward. Perhaps you're deceived in your assumptions. . .

I don't think you have to study philosophy, but you've said you'd like to have studied it, and that philosophy is important to you. . .yet you're unwilling to put aside your dogmas and truly let other ideas fill you.

"But why search outside myself when I can search within myself for answers." Why? Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real. And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours.

I used to be egotistical, in the vein you are. I wouldn't call yours straight-out egotisim, but you are quite stuck within yourself and your dogmas as far as I can tell. Everything was about "me," and I cared nothing for anything else. Part of buddhism is a realization that your "self" is an unreal thing, and that the only real "self" that there is is a type of higher consciousness, a collection of everything.

Why would you seek answers outside yourself? Well, because the answers are outside yourself. "You" is just an abstraction. All things are more connected than you'd like to think. "You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.
[/quote]
[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][/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][/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][/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][/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][/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][/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][/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][/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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][/size]

[Syk3]

[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.

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][/size][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I disagree. Philosophy can and does grow as new people discover and discuss it. It grows like anything else that man cares about, because that is the only way that it can grow. Maybe you're thinking that just because we discover something doesn't mean it was already around. To that i say that's irrelevant. When i say it grows, i do not mean science or philosophy itself grows in the real world, i mean it grows in our minds. I mean our understanding of them grows.

New isn't necessarily an improvement, sure, i can understand that. But new is an attempt at improvement. And even if it's not an improvement, as long as it's not going in the opposite direction in an extreme, then i say why not apply it? All people are different, so some may see it as an improvement while others may not, either way it is a change. Change is always good.

Well, i think that's enough of us trying to get you to think differently about philosophy. Instead i think it's about time we actually start discussing philosophy. Seriously you guys, let people think what they want to think. Phaedrus didn't start this thread to change people, he started it to discuss philosophy.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Papa Smurf]

Philosophy? Love of wisdom.

What I see here in this thread? Mostly love of words.

I don't see any actual wisdom here, so I find it incredibly ironic that people are talking about philosophy and fail to demonstrate any deeper understanding...or any amount of skepticism. I saw T13M hint at critical thinking, and Greggy had a paragraph or two about it...but that's it.

And for a thread about philosophy, that's just pitiful. I mean, if anyone allowed some reasonable level of critical thinking, we would never be seeing crap like the following:

[quote name='Phaedrus']Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real.[/quote]
[quote]And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours.[/quote]
As if other people's perceptions are so much more real or concrete?

There's zero logic to the above quotations. The implication above is that in order to find answers (understand your self), you have to look outside yourself...at other people, because you're part of this omnipresent sociometaphysical spiderweb network (or maybe it's just the Lifestream from Final Fantasy 7).

And so, if you think you've got better answers regarding your place in the world, regarding your purpose or self-image or your self whatever...you don't, because you can't possibly know yourself due to that Lifestrea--er, [i]omnipresent sociometaphysical spiderweb network[/i]. But why would we buy into any of that Lifestream poppycock in the first place?

[quote]"You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.[/quote]
Because everything is a part of us, which is just as empty and meaningless as using the bum in the slums of Camden or Detroit to define ourselves, or elevating said bum's drunken, maligned perception of our middle-class college student reality so it ultimately is more important than what we think of ourselves.

This entire thread is sopping with irony here.

People are so concerned with asking questions of other people that they neglect to ask questions of themselves--and I guarantee that the self-questioning is immensely more important here than asking "Who is this 'God' you speak of".

Self-questioning is infinitely more important than stumbling around a clumsy Animal House Donald Sutherland-esque marijuana "mindf-ck" about the nature of atoms and God.

What I find most hilarious about that line of thought (the "What if we're all a part of some giant's fingernail" type of "discussion") is that if actualizing interpersonal social networks is the goal of such a thought--a type of web, if you will, where everyone is connected metaphysically--all you have to do to actualize that interpersonal web is look around you and observe society.

It's nothing more than cognitive psychology (or sociology). If you want to talk metaphysics, than by definition/meaning of metaphysical ("beyond the physical"), the functions of the mind (note the mind, not the brain) and the collective subconscious of society are metaphysical.

Some may argue that metaphysics is much more complicated than "beyond the physical," but when you're being realistic about it...there's really nothing else that needs to be said when defining metaphysics. You've got the individual branches within metaphysics, sure, but I don't think they really matter all that much in any context.

But you want evidence of that metaphysical social network existing? That there's a cognitive psychological bond between all people?

Look at pictures of the crowds from 9/11/01 (Lord knows they're everywhere today). Very few of them are aware of the people around them, and even fewer are aware that everyone has the exact same gaping mouth "Oh my god..." look on their face. When the towers fall, it's not an active social decision that occurs when people start running; it's a survival mechanism, an automatic response that spreads...like panic. Or cattle.

The zombie walk across the bridges, same deal.

All of it has roots in cognitive psychology. Not philosophy. Point to Buddhism for the collective consciousness. I can point to cognitive psych and it'll be even more accurate and relevant, because in order to understand the world [i]around you[/i], you observe other people and resist the temptation to wrongly attempt to apply some greater cosmic significance to it.

But to arrive at the answers for your self? That's looking within yourself. No amount of attached external cosmic meaning is going to help you. If anything, it'll just confuse and distract you even more.

In fact, if one is so determined to find one's self, and to define one's purpose in life...it seems to me that looking to the external society is counter-productive, because that will only re-inforce the notion that you're a slave to the system, which isn't good at all for a self-image that you would like to be a positive self-image from what I can tell.

So what's it going to be, people?

[Guest Phaedrus]

Papa Smurf, you view things in a different light than me. You're inherently Aristotleian, constantly falling back onto the concrete, what we have here. As I've said before I'm Platonic. The Aritotleian/ Platonic split is a large one, and has been called many things, and I don't see any end to these volatile differences, I don't see any comprimise in their differences.

You're picking at my gross generalizations and trying to root them into individuals, and this is your nature. I can't understand why you view the world the way you do, and you can't understand why I do either.

I don't look only to society and people. Metaphysics, beyond the physical, beyond what of this reality we can see--it's all very speculative in nature, I agree. And I'm sure it sounds like utter ******** to you. But it's how I work. I live like you do, in this society, I accept its laws and what I have to do, but seeing as I look at the big picture I can't help but grasp at metaphysical straws, or the one metaphysical straw, called Truth, God, Allah, and many other things by many different people in many different languages.

I used to be Aristotleian; or, anyway, this society, my parents, and so forth tried to make me that. Plato taught Aristotle all he knew--all of his gross generalizations, all of it. Aristotle's reaction was what your reaction is right now--to focus on individuals, keep it rooted in the concrete, the individual, a focus on the self. My reaction to the Aristotleianism of the West was to become wholly Platonic. . .I was alienated by the focus on the self, the focus on science and logic and [i]reason[/i].

Since it's so much of me, I hate it. I seek to destroy it. I can no longer be logical, I can no longer be specific and individual. I see the world as I see it, and it's what's working for me, and you're not going to change our differences, and nor am I going to change yours.

I am happy, so let me be happy.

[2010DigitalBoy]

I'm on both sides. I think you should know aout yourself in accordance to the universe.

Wait, scratch that, cuz I dont think I worded it quite right...

Either way, my personal 'philosophy,' if you will, is that it doesn't matter. The universe in incomprehensible. There is no true truth -- that statement itself is false, along with the once following it and so forth, because no one can ever know anything.

There is no need to understand ourselves, either. All there is is to be content.

[Guest Phaedrus]

Let us delve into something. . .

Does 2 + 2 = 4? If your answer is yes, justify your belief. If it is no, then tell me what 2 + 2 equals, and once again justify your belief.

[Papa Smurf]

I'm sorry, but there are still a few questions I have for you. Surely you can understand the need to question, right?

[quote name='Phaedrus']You're picking at my gross generalizations and trying to root them into individuals, and this is your nature.[/quote]
Why make gross generalizations in the first place? What's the use in gross generalizations? How can gross generalizations lead to any type of intellectual growth?

[quote]I don't look only to society and people.[/quote]
When the question posed by Adahn was "But why search outside myself when I can search within myself for answers" you answered with the following,

[quote]Why? Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real. And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours.
[...]
Why would you seek answers outside yourself? Well, because the answers are outside yourself. "You" is just an abstraction. All things are more connected than you'd like to think. "You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.[/quote]
I find nothing in there to suggest anything more than advocating looking at other people's perception of you to find answers about your self. I've already explained why "Part of everything and everything is part of you" is an empty phrase and is insufficient in explaining the reasoning behind depending on the external world for meaning.

[quote]but seeing as I look at the big picture I can't help but grasp at metaphysical straws, or the one metaphysical straw, called Truth, God, Allah, and many other things by many different people in many different languages.[/quote]
Major mistake here is that you're confusing "big picture" with Truth. In fact, you're confusing a few different concepts; Truth, God, big picture...whatever terms you may have read...aren't the same thing at all.

Let's talk God first. Assuming that God exists, he would be the ultimate power, right? The one that guides everything. The one behind all the machinations of the universe, of all existence. "God" himself is an intelligent otherworldly force. That God has a consciousness. You're looking at an active ruler.

Same goes for Allah.

Both God and Allah are eternal and original. If a God exists, it will have existed forever, and will exist forever.

Truth, however? There is no intelligent otherworldly force with Truth. It's near impossible to apply any type of metaphysical being or entity to Truth (which is why capitalizing it is in itself a fallacy). Truth cannot be personified. It has no consciousness. At best, it's a man-made, artificial construct; there's no inherent, original, eternal system of Truth.

One may argue that if God exists, he creates what is true. I would ask, what is true? How would you arrive at any conclusion regarding what true would be, especially when you've got nothing more than gross generalizations and clumsy implementations of an awkward and archaic viewpoint of the world? When you have nothing to support your statements regarding "Truth," your statement itself becomes a vague, gross generalization...which puts you farther back than when you started.

Regarding the "big picture," there's nothing more to it than Existentialism. You're looking for some profound meaning in the fabric of the universe when all that universe is is dead space. You look for deeper meaning in the world around you and fail to realize that there's a reason you feel so alone sometimes: because there is no deeper meaning. The "big picture" is the same as the "small picture." You seek meaning because you don't feel meaning, and you don't feel meaning because there isn't meaning.

If there was inherent meaning, do you think you'd be searching for it, or do you think you'd have found it by now?

By that same token, if there was some inherent meaning, don't you think someone would have at least stumbled across it over the past 4000 years?

[quote]I see the world as I see it, and it's what's working for me, and you're not going to change our differences, and nor am I going to change yours.[/quote]
Meh? See below.

[quote name='Phaedrus earlier in the thread]as a philosopher I understand that it's impossible for me to [become greater than God']. I'm just as in awe of things as you are, but I look at the big picture.[/quote]
[quote name='Phaedrus earlier in thread']While I may have my ideas and assumptions of reality, that doesn't mean I'm not willing to let them go and seek to understand someone else's. . .[/quote]
And so you're unwilling to entertain a discussion where I'm just asking you some questions? That doesn't sound much like a philosopher to me.

[quote]I am happy, so let me be happy.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, it sounds like a false happiness. See below.

[quote=Phaedrus earlier in the thread] The problem that arises with these dogmas is that people cling to them [i]too[/i] tightly. They [i]desire[/i] to have understanding, desire to have a reason for their existence. What ends up happening, though, is that what they cling to are truth-dressed shimmering lies. That is to say that these abstractions of reality are deceiving, that they dress in the garments of truth and glimmer, but they are really lies.
[...]
Thus you can't let yourself fall into any one dogma. You've got to let go of them, as hard as it can be
[...]
And when you let go. . .well, I can't explain it in words. It's an [i]astounding[/i] feeling. When you desire as little as possible. . .when you [i]experience this[/i], you feel like you now understand so much more.[/quote]
All you've done is go from a non-extreme to an extreme. You've gone from non-dogma to dogma, and embraced the dogma in exactly the same way that you criticized above. How can you be so sure those other dogmas aren't lies? How can you be so sure that your new belief structure (and it is a rigid belief structure, as evidenced by your contradictory comments above) isn't in fact a bunch of "truth-dressed shimmering lies"?

What, because of the feeling you feel right now? The inner peace, the calm, the euphoria?

It's a false euphoria. I know, because I hit it back in high school. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to take a devastating volleyball spike right to the eyes and nose and bounce right back up off the floor, completely unfazed and unharmed. It's the exact inner peace that makes it possible to withstand physical pain without so much as a wince. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to love those around you unconditionally and to forgive everyone.

So what happens? It's a false euphoria. Part of that inner peace will always be with you, but it doesn't dominate your being. It's merely an anchor that keeps you balanced.

You'd mentioned metacognition. That's part of it. That's a major component of it, actually, and it's going to be the higher order of metacognition that evolves later, that's going to help augment your self when the feelings of loss and despair slam back after the false euphoria breaks.

And plus, this isn't me not letting you be happy. This is me questioning your belief structure, which is what true philosophers do, isn't it? Engage in fairly deep discussions regarding the human condition? Or is the Smurf, like in previous threads, not permitted to ask questions?

[Guest Phaedrus]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']Why make gross generalizations in the first place? What's the use in gross generalizations? How can gross generalizations lead to any type of intellectual growth?[/quote]

Why make individual, systematic specifications in the first place? What's the use in those? How can they lead to any type of intellectual growth?



[quote] Let's talk God first. Assuming that God exists, he would be the ultimate power, right? The one that guides everything. The one behind all the machinations of the universe, of all existence. "God" himself is an intelligent otherworldly force. That God has a consciousness. You're looking at an active ruler.[/quote]

You're talking of the Judeo-Christian God here. God isn't necessarily that. God doesn't need to be charaterized. You can infer its existence without a need to further define it.

[quote]Both God and Allah are eternal and original. If a God exists, it will have existed forever, and will exist forever.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]Truth, however? There is no intelligent otherworldly force with Truth. It's near impossible to apply any type of metaphysical being or entity to Truth (which is why capitalizing it is in itself a fallacy). Truth cannot be personified. It has no consciousness. At best, it's a man-made, artificial construct; there's no inherent, original, eternal system of Truth.[/quote]

Now we're just playing a game of language and terms, definitions and meaning. God is a man-made construct too, the word itself is a construct, the thought of such a thing is relative and man-made.

When God was thought of, or Gods were thought of, this was thought of as something that is absolute, certain, and true. Since it was unknowable then, and is still unknowable today, it is merely an abstraction, a construct, an arbitration. What I'm talking about really has no name, it isn't one ultimate being, it isn't anything to me, because I refuse to assume it or "they" are anything. All I know is that it's out there.

[quote] One may argue that if God exists, he creates what is true. I would ask, what is true? How would you arrive at any conclusion regarding what true would be, especially when you've got nothing more than gross generalizations and clumsy implementations of an awkward and archaic viewpoint of the world? When you have nothing to support your statements regarding "Truth," your statement itself becomes a vague, gross generalization...which puts you farther back than when you started.[/quote]

Sometimes you've got to step back and look around before making any more movements, eh?

[quote]Regarding the "big picture," there's nothing more to it than Existentialism. You're looking for some profound meaning in the fabric of the universe when all that universe is is dead space. You look for deeper meaning in the world around you and fail to realize that there's a reason you feel so alone sometimes: because there is no deeper meaning. The "big picture" is the same as the "small picture." You seek meaning because you don't feel meaning, and you don't feel meaning because there isn't meaning.[/quote]

I can't look at the world that way. That's depressing, and feels more of a step back than what you see as stepping back up above.

[quote]If there was inherent meaning, do you think you'd be searching for it, or do you think you'd have found it by now?[/quote]

That's the beauty of being human.

[quote] By that same token, if there was some inherent meaning, don't you think someone would have at least stumbled across it over the past 4000 years?[/quote]

They have, in various ways. There's meaning in buddhism, christianity, science--everywhere.




[quote] All you've done is go from a non-extreme to an extreme. You've gone from non-dogma to dogma, and embraced the dogma in exactly the same way that you criticized above. How can you be so sure those other dogmas aren't lies? How can you be so sure that your new belief structure (and it is a rigid belief structure, as evidenced by your contradictory comments above) isn't in fact a bunch of "truth-dressed shimmering lies"?

What, because of the feeling you feel right now? The inner peace, the calm, the euphoria?

It's a false euphoria. I know, because I hit it back in high school. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to take a devastating volleyball spike right to the eyes and nose and bounce right back up off the floor, completely unfazed and unharmed. It's the exact inner peace that makes it possible to withstand physical pain without so much as a wince. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to love those around you unconditionally and to forgive everyone.

So what happens? It's a false euphoria. Part of that inner peace will always be with you, but it doesn't dominate your being. It's merely an anchor that keeps you balanced.

You'd mentioned metacognition. That's part of it. That's a major component of it, actually, and it's going to be the higher order of metacognition that evolves later, that's going to help augment your self when the feelings of loss and despair slam back after the false euphoria breaks.[/QUOTE]

It's true that I've fallen into the dogma we could vaguely define as buddhism. The ideas I've expressed in this thread are ideas I've found in various ways that are helping me along my way. I've come pretty far since you last saw me, and I know you're speaking from experience. Even so I've got to find it out my own way.

Perhaps what you say will happen will happen--how am I to know, or how are you to know? I just need time. Your words cannot will experience into action.

Now let's get on with the thread.

As I asked earlier:

[quote]Let us delve into something. . .

Does 2 + 2 = 4? If your answer is yes, justify your belief. If it is no, then tell me what 2 + 2 equals, and once again justify your belief.[/quote]

[Adahn]

[size=2]Well, Phaedrus, I'll leave you and your discussion with Papa Smurf, and address your numbers question.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Does 2 + 2 = 4? That sort of question can only be answered with a yes or a no, and I will not do that, I will examine the equation itself and disregard your question. Let's see it alone.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]2 + 2 = 4[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The symbol "2", is a number, used to keep track of things. I know what it means to hold up two (2) fingers. It holds a place of distinction. There are many ways to represent the number, but the idea of 2, regardless of the symbol expressing it, is unique. No other idea besides a number can represent it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The plus (+) sign indicates addition. You may take anything, be it number or some other entity, and add them. All addition requires is that you relate the two (or more) things that are being added in a meaningful way. If you have a "2" in the center of the sun, and another "2" one million lightyears away, you can connect them by adding them together. You can say, "Together, they are four." Addition is a way of grouping and categorizing things, forcing them into a type of sameness that allows you to consider them one thing, by means of the grouping. Time and distance are no hindrance to addition.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]My favorite part is the equals (=) sign. It tells us that there is a balance between what it separates. It is another way of relating two things, but this relation implies a separateness. 2 + 2 and 4 are related in that following through with the addition of one "2" and another "2" will then allow you to group them in another way, making them into a single "4". It also tells you that you can "split" a single "4" in two 'equal' groups, namely two "2's", however you like. The difference is just that, a difference. If "2 + 2" and "4" were [i]exactly[/i] the same thing, you could write 4 = 4, which is redundant, in that you can mathematically remove the group "4" from each side, giving you 0 = 0. Since writing two groups of nothing and relating them to each other is pointless, all you're left with is "=". The sign for balance in all things. If you want an absolute, I will give you one, and only one. Balance is an absolute. Whether we see it or not, Balance is in all things. It is not something we can meld to our will. Can you say good and evil are balanced? Can you say good = evil? You cannot force balance to work for you. You must discover its rules, and follow them. Absolutes are things that we cannot change, by any action or inaction of will. Balance is one of those things.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, your original question was, Does 2 + 2 = 4? I don't much like the word 'does' here, but hopefully my exploration of 2 + 2 = 4 can help you see how I view it.[/size]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Phaedrus']Why make individual, systematic specifications in the first place? What's the use in those? How can they lead to any type of intellectual growth?[/quote]
My answer: because they place responsibility on the individual, and the individual is always present and held accountable.

Now that I answered your little Socratic method, answer my original questions in a respectable and concrete manner.

[quote]You're talking of the Judeo-Christian God here. God isn't necessarily that. God doesn't need to be charaterized. You can infer its existence without a need to further define it.[/quote]
I'm talking about the idea of a supreme being. I'm not talking about God; my focus is on the God-ness. Don't want me to use the word God? Don't use it in a sentence. lol

To appease you, I'll use unknown supreme being (USB).

The minute you invoke USB in any form is the minute where you start using the all-powerful deity, and the all-powerful deity is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian belief, either, remember. You've got African tribes worshipping all-powerful mother and deer goddesses. Ancient Mesopotamia had its own religious overlords; you can find evidence of that in Epic of Gilgamesh, in the form of Humbaba.

[quote]Now we're just playing a game of language and terms, definitions and meaning.[/quote]
We were playing a game of language from the very beginning.

[quote]God is a man-made construct too, the word itself is a construct, the thought of such a thing is relative and man-made.

When God was thought of, or Gods were thought of, this was thought of as something that is absolute, certain, and true. Since it was unknowable then, and is still unknowable today, it is merely an abstraction, a construct, an arbitration. What I'm talking about really has no name, it isn't one ultimate being, it isn't anything to me, because I refuse to assume it or "they" are anything. All I know is that it's out there.[/quote]
One thing you'll come to learn in a philosophical discussion is that most of the time, you'll find an assumption that God exists, if only for the sake of the discussion. This is one such time.

And thus, God is real and eternal, which makes me wonder why you'd list God in a sentence along with "big picture" and "Truth", because those phrases are not interchangeable.

And if God is man-made, then why include him at all in your quest for "Truth"? After all, how can you pursue something that doesn't exist?

[quote]Sometimes you've got to step back and look around before making any more movements, eh?[/quote]
Exactly why...

[quote]I can't look at the world that way. That's depressing, and feels more of a step back than what you see as stepping back up above.[/quote]
...it's not depressing at all; it's liberating. You begin to shape your own existence after realizing there is no meaning.

[quote]That's the beauty of being human.[/quote]
It's the pitfall of humanity. Blinded by belief, by obsession, by a desire to [i]find[/i] meaning, rather than take control and [i]create[/i] meaning.

[quote]They have, in various ways. There's meaning in buddhism, christianity, science--everywhere.[/quote]
So if there's already meaning, why do you have a problem? Why the worry, fear, sadness, etc? Why the false euphoria?

[quote]It's true that I've fallen into the dogma we could vaguely define as buddhism. The ideas I've expressed in this thread are ideas I've found in various ways that are helping me along my way. I've come pretty far since you last saw me, and I know you're speaking from experience. Even so I've got to find it out my own way.

Perhaps what you say will happen will happen--how am I to know, or how are you to know? I just need time. Your words cannot will experience into action.[/quote]
And that's exactly what you're going to do. Find it out your own way. I'm just informing you what is going to happen, so you know what to expect.

By the way, 2+2=4 because of symmetry. Nobody gives a crap about our thumbs except when we need to pick something up. Index finger is great for pointing. Middle finger is one my favorite gestures because it's so expressive. The ring finger is for a very special ring when you find that special someone. And without the pinky, we wouldn't have cute nicknames in Doom for the Pinky Demon.

Those are four fingers. Hence, 2+2=4. Four is the magic number.

[Goodbye, Face]

[font=arial][size=1]What Phaedrus and anyone else who asks this question wants to hear:

2 + 2 =/= 4; because if you add two people to two people, and if one person is made up of X cells, and another person is made up of Y cells, then it isn't true. However, they're still people, so loosely, the eqation works.


Riiight.


If Person A is somehow more of a... person... than Person B, then they are not equal and therefore cannot be considered the same thing when you add them together. It's mathematical law, isn't it? So instead of 2 + 2 = 4; it's more like W + X + Y + Z = 4.[/font][/size]

[Guest Phaedrus]

I dub thee thread-killer, with thine poisonous tongue
Which secretes truth jagged-edged as knives.

Infecting all intravaneously, slithering round
Thou snake, thou serpent of evil.


:p


[quote] Now that I answered your little Socratic method, answer my original questions in a respectable and concrete manner.[/quote]

I can do respectable, but I can't do concrete.

Both views of reality--"big picture" and "small picture" are equally useful, correct? None is greater than the other?

By looking at the small picture, you miss so much. By looking at the big picture you miss the detalis too, don't you?

They're both useful.

[quote]The minute you invoke USB in any form is the minute where you start using the all-powerful deity, and the all-powerful deity is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian belief, either, remember. You've got African tribes worshipping all-powerful mother and deer goddesses. Ancient Mesopotamia had its own religious overlords; you can find evidence of that in Epic of Gilgamesh, in the form of Humbaba.[/quote]

Point taken.

[quote]And if God is man-made, then why include him at all in your quest for "Truth"? After all, how can you pursue something that doesn't exist?[/quote]

By following its ghost.

[quote] ...it's not depressing at all; it's liberating. You begin to shape your own existence after realizing there is no meaning.[/quote]

That's what I've been doing all along, actually. It is liberating. I'm just getting out the kinks and letting go more and more.

[quote] It's the pitfall of humanity. Blinded by belief, by obsession, by a desire to find meaning, rather than take control and create meaning.[/quote]

Hm. . .so if there isn't meaning, then why create meaning? Why the need to make something arbitrary? Why not just be lithe and free in the lack of meaning? Further, why exist at all? As a human, we have form, an expression of meaning upon the lack of meaning all around us. . .so why exist?

Musn't we exist for a purpose in this case? Otherwise, why would we exist in the first place?

[quote]Balance is an absolute. Whether we see it or not, Balance is in all things. It is not something we can meld to our will. Can you say good and evil are balanced? Can you say good = evil? You cannot force balance to work for you. You must discover its rules, and follow them. Absolutes are things that we cannot change, by any action or inaction of will. Balance is one of those things.[/quote]

The key point of your post, Adahn. I enjoyed it. Well stated.

If no one replies for a while I'll edit my post and put my thoughts on the 2 + 2 = 4 thing.