Discussion » Nonsense » Philosophy Thread

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    This thread is going to bomb like a holocaust joke at a Barmitzvah, but, well, fuck it.

    I often find myself pondering the big questions in life. Morality. Truth. Ethics. Is there a God? What the fuck am I doing here? McDonald's vs. Burger King. How to live? If I masturbate before going on a date, will it make me calmer, more confident and less needy or will lose my edge and desire to impress? Suicide. Aesthetics. Love etc.

    What do WLIBbers think?

    For my own part, I'm often drawn to the idea that the world and our lives are chaotic, possibly meaningless and probably not to be repeated. This itself strikes me as quite liberating; it sorts of frees me up to pursue a sort of lazy hedonism- essentially I feel really feathery, like everything is an opportunity to fun. Other say this is an unrealistic, negative, faithless, scary, selfish and immoral way to live.

    Any thoughts?

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    feeling that, yo

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Solipsism.

    PROVE ME WRONG.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Well, Solipsism is a thought experiment isn't it? Nobody actually believes it.

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    I'm glad to hear you are a solipsist. I am too. We should get together to discuss how the other one of us doesn't exist

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Carlos, Has you read The myth of Sisiphus by Camus?

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    So Mr. Findley studied philosophy.... 看来我得用我的PHD学位证书来擦屁股了!耶!!

    ##

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    I have A豆腐, Camus is a favourite of mine...

    David thanks for your input, in many ways you inspired this thread. The point is I am interested in how regular people view these things. I appreciate I could read the WHOLE history of philosophy, but it is not really what I was getting at.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    对对对,ANN,当警察抓到你的时候,你就跟他说:"我不需要那该死的驾照来证明我的驾驶能力。"

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Ann,我终于明白为什么你不懂哲学了,你连警察的真假都分不清。再说了,我之前说的是你需不需要驾照来证明你的驾驶能力,即使你的驾驶能力再牛逼,但是没有驾照,行吗?

  • Yuki Inés
    Yuki Inés wrote:

    结构主义

  • Mengmeng
    Mengmeng wrote:

    What do WLIBbers think?[br]

    I think someone had forgot to add this to the "First World Problems".

    All you have to do is look around and see how perfectly ordered and smoothly-running everything is in this world.[br]

    I should learn to read backward, it's really depressing to reach this conclusion after finishing such a long article:(.

  • Saint - Spartacus

    i'd say Burger King is better coz the burger is bigger . about Aesthetics : a very bad thing could be the most beautiful . about chaotic : it's a desire . '' this is an unrealistic, negative, faithless, scary, selfish and immoral way to live.'' - i'm the way opposite , but if for a need of existence - Existentialism ? ^^ . dilemma - or parallel Synchronization doctrine ~ ~ !

    汉 ! 汗 !寒 !

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Finally a serious answer, thanks Saintro.

    I agree about the Burger King Burger; it totally smashes anything McDonald's has to offer, but their fries are inferior. Once you put milkshakes into the mix, it becomes a very tough call.

  • K5-35
    K5-35 wrote:

    On a bigger picture, Solipsism, definitely Solipsism.

    Personally, Taoist.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Well, Solipsism is a thought experiment isn't it? Nobody actually believes it.

    I think you mean nobody consequential actually believes it. Except for me. Because it's my thought experiment.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Talking to yourself again...

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    David, David, What a same! Flirting with all those bastards of Kant !
    You are a traitor to the Anglo-Empiricism !! Not even better than the called Circle of Cambridge...

    Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Heidegger.... All these motherfuckers wrote for the sake of fill up paper, spinning out their thoughts as long as possible, amplifying ideas that are half-true, queer, forced and fucking indefinite. Lack of clearness is the sign of cheaters, Clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    What´s wrong with 'scientific' nihilism prevalant today? The renaissance will come when we finally come to terms with what science has taught us:

    [...] our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.

    We should begin to assume what we are in this fucking universe. Stop dream about afterlife, golden absolutes, bearded old men living in heavens, souls, Perpetual peace and others mental abortions...

    We are shit, Entropic systems, Hic et Nunc

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    I think it will be a developed form of transcendental idealism

    If you do it in the future, don´t forget take the empirical consciousness (that is common to us all) as startpoint. Because, you know, not all of us have been gifted with the ability of intuite hiper-physical relations, see the fourth dimension and those things, so If you start from the standpoint of cognitions that are not directly communicable, your future readers will not know about what are you talking about...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    To say that human being is the pinnacle of creation, or that we are the fruit of evolutionary development is as valid as the opinion that everything is purposeless, random chaos.

    To say that the human being in a constant process of becoming pinnacles of creation is as valid as the opinion that we are the sole authors of purpose. Neither of these propositions are mutually exclusive, nor do they lead to hoary ruminations on the so-called "nihilism" of so-called "science".

    In fact, the philosophical evidence for the prior is more convincing, but the so-called 'scientific basis' of the latter turns into popular nihilism.

    Forcing the incredibly trite dichotomy of a priori so-called "philosophy" counterposed against mere a posteriori "so-called" science turns into popular postmodernism.

    In fact, this (however implicit) nihilism is actually standard formulae in academia. ... Marxism was considered 'scientific', not because it was really scientific, but because it was close-minded to materialist atheism.

    Dismissing Marxism out of hand is standard formula in pseudoacademia.

    Even Keynes got away with it, and his economic system all but surrenders to the political inevitabilities alluded to in "scientific socialism"--Marx's term for his own philosophy, selected to distinguish his ideas from those of utopian socialism, which was not founded upon historicism. Marxism taken on its own has serious flaws and is only barely quasi-scientific thanks to its empirical foundations, but for you to imply that its influence is because it's atheistic, then think you're making too much of what was merely a clever metaphor comparing religion to what was, at that time, a miraculous medicine.

    If we gave Kant the same unforgiving treatment Marx gets, and found just one weak link as an excuse for the disposal of the whole chain, then no one would have read Kant after Perpetual Peace. It was total shit, worse than the worst offered by those utopian socialist who Marx abhored as we abhor hippies.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    David, If you agree with kantian idealism, you should take as startpoint the categories of time and space. And don´t think you will have to copy/paste what he said, when Kant wrote those chapters about the categories of time and space in -The Critique of Pure Reason-, he had in his mind the Newton's Principia Mathematica, and Physics has gone beyond Newton in these centuries... There is a lot of work to do.

    I think this is the only proper way to make Ontology, taking as startpoint the current science results and reflect on them. Good houses and good philosophical systems are built on solid ground.

    But if you find yourself in a deeply and urgent need of write something about Being, maybe you can do it and make something worthy to read, just if you choose a particular case in the history of philosophy, in a similar way as Aubenque did it when he wrote The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics.

    In any case, just be careful, don't get the truth from your head, like Zeus pulled out Athena from his head.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    David Findley:

    you're trying too hard, animal and it looks like you're arguing more for the sake of sounding smart than actually having a decent conversation. =\

    Sorry, but I cannot into philosophy without sounding smart, even if I'm responding in earnest to trolls. But hey. That's why I came to this thread, to learn from a master debater, about how to drop names of dead people I haven't read, instead of showing my work and referencing actual works or theories.

    Anyway, don't listen to @A Tofu. When presented with the opportunity, DO take the brown acid from hippies. What the psychoactive experience has taught me is that even when you alter the way sense-data is mediated to your consciousness--whether being augmented by hallucinogens or blunted by dissociatives--the mind will find various methods of organizing that data and finding coherent patterns much like when it is not under the influence.

  • Dominik
    Dominik wrote:

    Humans act in a certain way and think in a certain way because nature made us that way, why do you think people in general come up with all the far fetched explanation of human existence, our sense of perception lies in the eyes only...which is a sham really when you think about it. so called science has already proven that there is so much, MUCH more space in between or percepton of reality. our brain is an electric circuit that uses impulses to stimulate our thinking process, at the end of the day we are not smarter then a monkey, we are getting dumbfoudned and depressed and suddenly we got more question that is the crucial moment when people decide to either trust in some higher force or in further studying and observing further.

    humans think they know something but we know almost nothing, the only thing that sets us apart from our animal brothers is that we are truly talented with is our ability to think creatively, to think around problems and use our hands to create complex machines that can make everything we do in life less complicated(ranging from cooking, communication. to trasnportation and finally to killing things) we are technically still the same cave men we were 40000 years ago, our brains didnt get bigger and at the end of the day we still crave for the same: reproduction(the act of fucking),games, sleep, nourishment and power. we go against the grain unline animals who follow a strict thinking pattern thats purely based on instinct. something that human beings desperately try to rectify but in the end always get caught up with, mind you there are certain human indivual who actually took a peak behind the veil of illusion(siddartha gautama for example) and to live in perfect harmony with themselves and their sorrounding nature but most of the time we do what we a supposed to do as the superior race on the planet...

    that has NEVER changed and will never change, if you want to use philosophy to ask where we come from i can only say, does it matter? you dont know whats going to happen when you die,do you? you might have a clue but thats what we always end up with a far fetched half assed theory on how something could be. if you ask yourself what you want to believe in, well you can believe in anything...celestial beings ruling us with a divine law, a grey beard man who sits in the clouds, speaking lizards that show the word of god to the chosen written on golden plates, reincarnation, valhalla, nothing at all, that we come from a pool of mud(slime of the earth) and so on.

    whatever flavor suits you. the problem is if one of these believes becomes doctrine and you must follow them without your consent(form of goverment, church etc.)

    i do like platos approach to take everything that floats my boat

    then again we will never know the answer, so i could believe that the all divine creator is actually a comic book artist that has drawn us on this crappy planet :)

    remember: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    What the psychoactive experience has taught me is that even when you alter the way sense-data is mediated to your consciousness--whether being augmented by hallucinogens or blunted by dissociatives--the mind will find various methods of organizing that data and finding coherent patterns much like when it is not under the influence.

    Dando, Hegel held the same opinion about that, for this reason, each time Humboldt went in one of his travel-adventures to South America, Hegel asked him to bring some marijuana (You can find it in the Humboldt´s diaries). So it is not surprising therefore that Hegel could know by direct intuition the Absolute, the Spirit, thing-in-itself ....

    David,

    ....you know, I can't really do my work justice like this on an internet forum-- and you cant possibly be genuinely interested from what I have told you. so dont feel obliged to entertain

    That sounds to me like a lame excuse. Stop talk about how you wrote it, and put your stuff here. I'm curious about it.

  • Fabian Kollen
    Fabian Kollen wrote:

    I WANT TO SHOOT ON MY OWN FACE

  • 随便叫兽
  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Let me first answer this question.

    alt text

    YES.

    46) To build up to an answer to this question, it is important that we first remember the distinction made in (3)—that Time and Change are distinct phenomena. That is, however it is the case that Change unfolds in Time, it is a mistake to confuse Change as Time. The consequence of this distinction renders the notions of ‘past’ and ‘future’ unto the realm of Change, as they are the products of casuality—distinct from the essential nature of Time itself.

    Just picked this one at random to analyze because I'm on weed. (The idea of presenting this kind of 'treatise' as a numbered list is retarded.) So here David is dealing with the problem (presented in #45) that the laws of physics, particularly gravity, seem to change when we shrink down to the subatomic or quantum realm.

    Backstory:

    The mathematics used to explain the motion of subatomic particles have gone so haywire, something like 11 extra dimensions have had to be added to the universe. These are dimensions which only 'exist' because the Math says they have to. So now we are dealing with the scientific equivalent of the Christian doctrine of the 'trinity' -- that God, his son, and the holy spirit are all one and yet also separate entities -- an idea that Milton rejected out of hand because it was not 'rational' and could not be comprehended by a mind that lives in a world of separate entities that are not also one.

    On Milton's grounds we can also reject current models of the universe proposed by quantum physics, with 11 or 12 dimensions (they aren't sure, srsly), because such a universe can not be comprehended even on the strongest DMT.

    Cannot be comprehended, therefore false.

    Conclusion:

    But David has not considered the idea that Quantum Physics is a bunch of pointless math even though accepting it is the cancer that makes his theory A Pile of Unreadable Nonsense involving assertions about how Time is distinct from Change and therefore the past and the future are not properly matters of Time but of Change, and therefore Time only exists because of Change and therefore Time is not really philosophically important even though it is the murderer of everything in the universe and the universe.

    tl;dr: tl;dr

    inb4 I'm too stupid to comprehend an 18-dimensional universe.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    As starting point, there should be established some foundational principles:

    David, Where do all those foundational principles come from?

    Take a look at The Principles of Mechanics: Presented in a New Form by Heinrich Hertz , Pag.45 link text this a good way

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    14) To illustrate the usefulness of this interpretation of the Space-Time continuum, we may use for example the lesser dichotomy of Wave-Particle Dualism. 15) Wave-Particle Duality involves a strict, polar relationship between waves and particles.

    Wave-particle duality in fact posits precisely the opposite: light behaves both as a wave and a particle. Does that seem like a dichotomous relationship to you?

    This is only the most glaringly obvious fuck up. If I was an actual philosopher or a physicist I would probably be having a fucking conniption. Oh well, though. This is about to get entertaining.

    16) To illustrate via diagram the hypothetical placement of Wave-Particle Duality on the Space-Time continuum, including the polar relationships between the entities as established so far:

    alt text

    (BTW PLZ SHARE THE REAL ONE, FINDLEY)

    17)The implication of the above model, is that waves and particles are ontological derivations of Space and Time. That is, they are specific manifestations resultant of the polar interactivity of Space and Time. They are also subject to polar relations.

    Does Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan Sokal appear in your bibliography?

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Let us continue because FUN.

    52) We see this principle again in the case of the perfect circle, and its relationship to Pi. The circle is recognized, unmistakably, as a circle—however it being the case that the mathematical details that characterize the circle, Pi, are an infinite series of random numbers. This relationship between the circle and Pi is a reiteration of this same principle of Chaotic generation.

    Pi is the number you get when you divide the length of the circumference of a circle by its diameter. Asberger's sufferers who think numbers are interesting made the nerderific discovery that Pi never ends or repeats. As David states, "it is an infinite series of random numbers."

    David's leap is to see a connection between the maddening infinity of Pi and the counter-intuitive anarchy of quantum mechanics, where particles behave not only as both waves and particles, but also as time-defying illusionists which can appear in two places at the same time. Thus wormholes. Chaos theory -- you cannot predict where any subatomic particle will be at any given time -- is then shown in a positive light as a "regenerative" force that makes the happy circles of our world possible. Einstein rejected chaos theory saying 'God doesn't roll dice' or something to that effect, but here David Findley has taken what so many have seen as reason for cosmic disappointment and atheistic despair and has re-imagined it as the source of renewal, the divine fuel of perfection.

    Order from chaos.

    Being from Nothingness.

    Sense from Nonsense.

    alt text

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    animal, the particle/wave duality is a reference to this: that every particle has an accompanying wave; every wave has its accompanying particle. you will never find a solitary particle without a wave, or vice-versa.

    Actually, you can ONLY observe one property or the other, and never both together simultaneously for the same individual particle or wave-form. This is because waves and particles are merely second-order phenomena which emerge as a consequence of the limitations of the observer. In classical physics, waves and particles were complements in a theoretical dichotomy, but the entire thrust of quantum mechanics--and the source of so much butthurt for those boring old analytic philosophers--leads to the blurring of such simple distinctions and the annihilation of the clear-cut dichotomy between waves and particles.

    light is not an exception, and consists of both waves and particles

    Light consists of particles which exhibit wave-like properties, or waves which exhibit particle-like properties, but not simultaneously existent waves and particles which can be distinguished from one another.

    (however the particles in this case are without mass.)

    That is, particles with the characteristics of waves.

    I don't think it is a 'glaring fuck up' ....

    Then I suggest you stop huffing ether of the luminiferous variety.

    the diagram's didnt make it through the copy and paste venture... but maybe something like this:Space --- TimeSpace ---- Wave ----- Particle ----- Timenow imagine curving lines connecting space and time, and then curving lines connecting waves and particlesand then curving lines that connect space to particles , and time to waves(it should look like a magnetic field to you )

    I love connect the dots! But in my imagining it looks more like the Virgin Mary or a vulva than a magnetic field. Maybe that's because I've never seen a magnetic field, because they're fucking invisible.

    Add caption: c'est nes pas un continuum espace-temps

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    I knew this thread would bomb.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc