|
Post by Josh on May 21, 2004 22:10:31 GMT -5
Yay. That's more like it.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 22, 2004 1:39:29 GMT -5
I'm gonna pretend that you didnt just say there arent clearly governed rules. Its apparent that you havent studied physics. There are such things as constants. You know, things that are always going to be the way they are. To say that there isnt is a constant itself, and a contradiction. Well, 2+2 always adding up to four is one such constant. You could call the numbers anything else, but the idea behind it would still be the same. No matter how many times you try to add 2 and 2 together to make something else, it will always be four. Twinkie says: A philosophy professor I had at a college I used to attend would continually revere the law of noncontradiction as a prime example of absolute truth and, through a series of symbolic logic proofs that I don't understand, draw other conclusions. However, one must consider that those studying modern quantum physics believe that discoveries made in the subject will potentially alter past logical assertions with the eventual possibility of the law of noncontradiction. I know a bit far-fetched and abstract (to those of us not savvy with quantum physics) but its an example of how complexities often shadow doubt on what can and cannot be considered absolute. Much of what you consider regarding "absolute truth" has to deal with your very basic metaphysical and epistemological beliefs, however one must be aware that the further one discusses such subjects, particularly with the modern crowd of 'philosophy people' in our universities, the blurrier and less relevant everythign will get. I'm aware that I probably didn't help, but I thought I'd share my thoughts anyway. The Sky is red says: the only addition i can make on this topic is i remember absolute truth being described to me using the 2+2=4 example - there is no possible circumstance, even in an alternate world where 2+2 would not equal 4. Twinkie says: Actually, I have heard it argued that using arguments like 2+2=4 cannot be construed as absolutely true because they can be manipulated down to language arguments where the truth of the statement is dependent on the belief that your understanding of the concepts of 2 and 4 are universal. This isn't a very practical argument because any concept can be argued against with this, so it is not proactive to use as an actual belief, but it is interesting. One can say that "To everyone using the same definitions as myself, the statement 2+2=4 cannot be disproved". Let me once again say, this isn't particularly proactive, but it's interesting and furthers the complexity issue. The sky is red says: Yeah, this was my response when I was told as well. But in fact the counter arguement goes that whether or not you and i agree on the word 'two' being the description of the thing 'two' what remains is that your understanding of the thing 'two' is the same as mine - regardless of what we call them. so it will always remain that the thing 'two' + the thing 'two' = the thing 'four' I say: man, you two are confusing me.... so lets say that we have 2 peaches....now work it from there. Twinkie says: Then I would say: "I am not functioning with the same qualitative or quantitative definitions as you and therefore I know not this 'peach' nor that your understanding of the measurement '2' is applicable to the situation" Just kidding. Things like that are why people hate philosophy students in universities. Honestly, it has to do with the limits you set on what should or should not be argued. Research foundationalism. In short, there are going to be certain foundational beliefs that, although they could be argued and manipulated into uncertainty, are the level on which a discussion will take place. From a foundational standpoint, very few are going to argue that you do not have 2 peaches (unless you are talking to postmodernists). So you say you have 2 peaches and I say "Indeed, those two peaches exist and you have them. If you get 2 more peaches you will have 4 peaches. Anyone who tells you otherwise is arguing a worthless argument and should only do so with others who enjoy that type of game." Yes? No? *shrug* On a side note, if you need clarification on foundationalism consider causes. Everything has a factor preceding it which aids its existence. They form a tower of causality. An example: I am in my apartment. I am here because I live here. I live here because I signed the lease. I signed the lease because I can write. I can write because pens make marks on paper. I know marks on paper exist because I can see them. I know they are real because I can trust what I see with my eyes. I know I can trust what I see with my eyes because I am sane. I know I am sane because society deems me sane. Society has propery definitions of sanity... blah blah blah.... This can be pursued into infinite regress with absolutely nothing immensely insightful being learned for EVERY TOPIC IMAGINEABLE. Foundationalists say that there must be a certain point on which you rely and argue no further. I KNOW I'm in my apartment and that's that. Obviously it's a pretty strong epistemological stance to take, but it's more practical to "real-life" in a lot of people's minds. Absolute truths or values are often places on a foundational level in this framework of thinking. "It's unhealthy to lie" or "One should not kill without cause" are statements which a foundationalist could claim as basic even though if one wanted to they could be analyzed further back and further back. The problem is that not every foundationalist arrives at the same understanding of what this truth would be which, therefore, destroys its acceptance as "absolute". (not sure I helped clarify anything) now you work it out and tell me about it because I have no clue. no clue whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 22, 2004 10:45:15 GMT -5
Not sure what you really want me to do with that. I'm guessing what you did was just copy and paste it from a website in the hopes of disproving my statement. If you really dont understand what it says, then you shouldnt have posted it. If you do understand it, then you still probably shouldnt have posted it, since it is mostly philosophical musings on how we percieve things. These two people discussing this assume that reality is to be determined by the way people percieve things, rather than by the way things actually are.
Like I said though, even if you change the meanings of two and two, the idea behind it stays the same. It is a concept that cannot be disproven. One could argue that 2x + 2x does not always equal four. Well, obviously. 2x and 2 are two completely different ideas.
I can play the copy and paste game two, because there is nothing easier then stealing someone else's ideas.
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 22, 2004 19:15:45 GMT -5
I'm guessing what you did was just copy and paste it from a website in the hopes of disproving my statement. nay, I'm asking for assistance with what they said. I can't understand the concepts. too many big words. so are you an objectivist? do you like Ayran Rand or whatever her name is? that's like the complete oposite. it's so grounded in what is now and what is material that it makes me sick. so how about schizo? I have a theory that people (in many cases anyway) aren't really disconnected from reality, as the defination explains, but merly in touch with a different reality. just because you don't see it/feel it whatever doesn't mean it's not real. If one person can be connected to a different reality, what if we all were....?
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 22, 2004 19:28:41 GMT -5
Yes, I am an Objectivist. Ayn RAnd kicks my ass. Maybe its a bit too concrete for you, since you enjoy quite a bit of mysticism in your life.
OH, and Schitzophrenics have something wrong with their mind. They hear voices and such, and on occassion, this proves to be quite an inconvenience. Try peddling your bullshit theory to them. I'm sure they'll agree.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 22, 2004 22:34:21 GMT -5
well if materialism is concrete than sure, but I would have to disagree. and I really don't know much of Ayn Rand, but she seems quite contraversial to say the least.
I hear voices. and sometimes I see things that others would not believe in. I thought it was from stress but even now my stress is gone, yet the voices remain. there isn't much physical evidence to support that schizos all have something wrong with their brain in a general sense. and like I said earlier, just because you don't acknowledge it's existance, doesn't mean it's not real. can there not be a possibility that these things I hear are in fact real?
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 22, 2004 23:59:59 GMT -5
I've actually taken some psychology courses. Pick up a freakin text book, and get a cat scan.
It also seems you dont know what Capitalism is. Pitty.
If I were you, I would spend less time talking about things you have no knowledge of, and researching those things so that you can talk about them. Its talking out of your ass that gets you in the most trouble, and allows room for unsatisfying answers.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 23, 2004 1:49:59 GMT -5
I learn best through discussion and constant feedback. books do little to help me, but whatever.
I've taken introductory psychology and I plan on majoring in it for Uni. Schizo is defined as seperation from reality. My theory is that it's not really that at all, but a connection with a different reality. People have already told me it's a stupid thought, but no one has told me why nor given any evidence against it.
and I hate capitalism in it's pure form. I perfer mixed economies where the flaws of human nature can be taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 23, 2004 10:30:44 GMT -5
Umm... wouldn't all of the research and scientific study in the textbook be at least one source of disagreeance with your theory from a reliable source? Plus, you give no evidence to support your own theory, yet expect others to do all the work for you. I have a theory that religious people are all mentally under developed and prone to great lapses in judgement and failure to grasp reality. No one has shown me anything to disprove it.
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 23, 2004 10:35:24 GMT -5
Why the hell would you wanna live in a country where mediocrity is enshrined? Capitalism is one of the only systems where you actually get what you put in.
Of course they cant disprove you using rational means. Thats because your thought process regarding such things isnt rational. Its the same way we try to argue against God. The idea of a God, or another, spiritual world, if you will, isnt rational at all. It is a professed belief in the supernatural, which means, beyond the natural world. When we live in the natural world, how can you aruge against the supernatural using rational means? Then again, you cant argue for the supernatural using rational means. Thats why no on can clearly prove or disprove God. But we only have seventy or so years on this planet on average. In that brief time span, we are forced to live in the rational world, and do what is in our best interest here. It is irrational to live in this world in the hopes of having a better life in another. Make the best of the life in this world, since it is very improbable that there is a life in another.
schiz·o·phre·ni·a: Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.
It seems your definition was only about half way to the truth. Dictionary.com is my source, in case you were wondering.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 23, 2004 18:41:00 GMT -5
Umm... wouldn't all of the research and scientific study in the textbook be at least one source of disagreeance with your theory from a reliable source? scientific study in the text book, as much as we got through in our class, simply gave examples of people, their symptoms, when it started, theories of why it started, and everyonce in a while they would through in a cat scan that showed that a certain part of their brain was MORE active than 'normal'. and of coarse I don't have evidence behind me. It's just a thought. I'm not asking you guys to believe it. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Nick, that last part of your definition is still being challanged because the evidence behind it isn't very constant. at least it wasn't in 2003. my idea fits in nicely with the rest of the definition without problems. (ps, dictionary.com is my best friend. ) I value equal living status and control over 'every one for themsleves' philosophy. with the flaws in human nature, that philosophy quickly becomes violent and deadly and very unpleasant for everyone. besides, I don't think that you can find much happiness in money. 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 24, 2004 15:49:34 GMT -5
I disagree. Money makes the world go round. People are the root of all evil. Money is just a concept.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 24, 2004 19:19:47 GMT -5
I said, "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." so yeah, it's humans that mess it up. that's why I think they should be more closely controled than a free market system. of coarse, you could argue that it's humans controling them blah blah blah, but at least it's not one person with a lot of power. it's many people that work together to try and overcome problems. and yes, in the 'modern' society, money does make the world go round, but I perfer to go against that. I refuse to let money control me and I refuse to let it become higher and more important that human lives. as an individual with my own life, I am able to do that and so I shall.
|
|
|
Post by BrightEyes05 on May 24, 2004 19:53:14 GMT -5
Well of course human lives are more important than money. Money simply represents human values. Its much easier to carry around money then it is to carry around the things you'd trade money for. Whens the last time you tried carrying a house? Or better yet, how many chickens is a house worth? See what I mean.
In Capitalism (lassiez faire, none of that regulated bullshit) no one person controls money. Everyone does. You get what you put in. Its mutual trade for mutual advantage. I see nothing wrong with that. Its communists and socialists that I have a problem with. Well, any form of collectivism really. See, cause with collectivism, sacrifice is made. No one should be forced to sacrifice their rights for others.
|
|
hambakmeritru
Junebug
take away the imidiate present and what is left?
Posts: 462
|
Post by hambakmeritru on May 24, 2004 20:10:55 GMT -5
well, morally I disagree with your last thought there, but can't really argue that, so yeah. just thought I'd point that out for no reason whatsoever. Well of course human lives are more important than money. Money simply represents human values. Its much easier to carry around money then it is to carry around the things you'd trade money for. Whens the last time you tried carrying a house? Or better yet, how many chickens is a house worth? See what I mean. that's a very practical and accurate definition of what money is and that's fine. but my beef is with what money has become. what it means to people. money was created for equal trade, but it's become an idol of sorts. because of people's love for money, it's one of the key motivations for almost everthing. I believe capitalism has good intentions. but it glorifies money. capitalism is what makes money so much like an idol. it holds it up as the ultimate prize and encourages greed with no boundries or limits. people aren't good enough to handle such a thing. that is what causes violence and even hatred against one another. pure capitalism turns everyone against one another and no love is ever found in it.
|
|