PDA

View Full Version : Archived Philosophy Thread



Predator
March 14, 2006, 07:44 AM
Well, there are so many intelligent members in this forum, I just couldn't hold back.
As you might have suspected, I like philosophy quite a lot.
IMO, Philosophy = Fun + Wisdom + Ideas + Opinion

This is a thread to share your philosophical ideas, idioms, ironic phrases, creeds aso.aso. :amuse

Enjoy



-----------------------------------------
I'll start with some classic taglines:

# Nothing is so simple that it can't get screwed up.
# If you can't make it good, make it big.
# If it isn't borken, don't fix it.
# Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.
# Gravity doesn`t exist: the earth sucks.
# He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.
# The best revenge in this world is to forgive.
# Assassination is an extreme form of censorship.

The Boff
March 14, 2006, 10:34 AM
#everything that has a possibility to fuck up, will without a doubt fuck up.
#If you drop a sandwich it always lands with the butter down.

and then i couldnt think of any more.....

walkie
March 14, 2006, 12:53 PM
#doing right things are more important than doing things right

this is a quote from someone else i dont remember his name now, someone from history but i like that so i wanted to share it

Gold Knight
March 18, 2006, 12:24 AM
This probably should be known as The Adage thread or something, I was expecting something a little different ( like a discussion about the meaning of life XD )

And boffenjl, that was an interesting variation of Murphy's Law, heh.

xallisto
March 18, 2006, 01:46 AM
How about Rene Descartes 'I Think Therefore i am'

anyone care to discuss this subject.

to cut a very long story short Rene Descartes decied one day that he would not make any assumptions nor would he rely on any fact that had been based on assumptious foundation.

Eventueally he came to the conclusion that all fact is eventually based on assumption. and the only true fact that could not possibey be based on assumption is that he Exists, he is alble to think therefore he must exist, and he wrote the quote ' i think therefore i am' its the defintion of existence.

of course this got me thinking about other unrelated stuff.

ill pass a question on to all of you now, if you robbed a person of all of his senses. would he be able to tell if he's alive or dead?

of course this brings introspection into the equation since intro spection is based on the senses, how would it eveolve to fit a senseless evriroment?

overjojojojo
March 18, 2006, 01:58 AM
unless you consider thought a sense, then yes, he could tell if he was still alive if i robbed him of all his senses...
sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch...

xallisto
March 18, 2006, 02:04 AM
ok ill ask another question, what the difference between that and being dead?

Predator
March 19, 2006, 09:20 AM
This probably should be known as The Adage thread or something, I was expecting something a little different ( like a discussion about the meaning of life XD )

And boffenjl, that was an interesting variation of Murphy's Law, heh.


Not at all GK. You see this is a place I made for members to express their ideas and thoughts and discuss them with others. Those taglines were a warmup session. Just to get people in the right mood. Meaning of life will follow.

@xallisto
Even if you steal all the senses a man still has his life and mind. He has memories and he can live inside them for the rest of his short life (no food and moisture whatsoever -> make conclusions). That's how the idea of existance kicks in. At the same time, being unable to sense things equals being unable to interact with them. That's as good as being dead. IMO the full sentence might be "I think therefore I am, I influence therefore I live".

And a few good taglines:

# Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
# Wisdom is knowing what to do with what you know.
# Fortune truly helps those who are of good judgment.

Bibichan
March 19, 2006, 07:39 PM
I think the sentence "I think therefore I am, I influence therefore I live" is more commenly used in the shortened version xallisto used. The Latin term would be "cogito ergo sum", if anyone's interested.

To stay with Latin, I personally like "Carpe diem" very much. "Seize the day". To me, this is exactly how you should approach life. Every day is special, if you regard it as special. You have to life in the here and now, not in the past, because you can't change the past. What's done, is done. If you made bad experiences in the past, just forget about them and life every day as if it were your first and last.

Predator
March 19, 2006, 08:20 PM
"Cogito ergo sum" is a commonspread Latin phrase. Everyone knows it, but why do you think I lenghtened the sentence? It was on purpose.
"C.e.s." is used as "I sense therefore I am".
My idea is "Cogito ergo sum, Operatio ergo vivere"

Speaking of knowing the difference between senselesness and death... there is just one. Unless the substance called soul exists. Then there are two. In the soul case the soul is unchained once the body dies. In the senseless state you can use your brain and have your mind, imagination and memories.

# "Scientists don't die, they just smell that way"

overjojojojo
March 19, 2006, 08:29 PM
ok ill ask another question, what the difference between that and being dead?
difference between having no senses and being dead? well... if you lived your life dedicated to the lord, then you'd be in heaven, and im pretty sure you'd be given everything back since its a realm of complete contentness...
and if you werent a servent of the lord, then you'd be in hell, which is a realm of eternal suffering... i think you'd get your senses back for that as well as to enhance the suffering...

of course all that is just how I think things would be...[br]Posted at: March 19, 2006, 10:24:38 AM_________________________________________________

I think the sentence "I think therefore I am, I influence therefore I live" is more commenly used in the shortened version xallisto used. The Latin term would be "cogito ergo sum", if anyone's interested.

To stay with Latin, I personally like "Carpe diem" very much. "Seize the day". To me, this is exactly how you should approach life. Every day is special, if you regard it as special. You have to life in the here and now, not in the past, because you can't change the past. What's done, is done. If you made bad experiences in the past, just forget about them and life every day as if it were your first and last.
I like that and completely agree... if something happened in the past, all you can do is remember it, and learn from it... dwelling on it or regretting it will not do anything... i also have always believed that EVERYTHING happens for a reason... its the will of god so to speak... like you look back... reflect on past events and their outcomes, i just see it as all is as it was meant to be... and i also believe that good always comes out of something bad... even if its some miniscule effect... its still positive...

Predator
March 20, 2006, 08:49 AM
OK, if we staer thinking about senses and experiences..
Which is better? Living a carefull, but long life seeing many things or living a wild life, experiencing many things in a short time and dying in a young age?

That's closely related to what we spoke of in the posts above, but in a different context. IMO, living a quiet life is the same as living senseless. That's rather existance, not living.

# "Don't ask me, I just work here."

xallisto
March 20, 2006, 08:52 AM
I think that experiances arnt worth anything if you dont learn anything from them, least of all learn to take life seriously and enjoy and savour it. take it nice and easy, theres absolutly no rush.

Predator
March 20, 2006, 08:59 AM
I think that experiances arnt worth anything if you dont learn anything from them, least of all learn to take life seriously and enjoy and savour it. take it nice and easy, theres absolutly no rush.


Then how would you justify sky-diving and bungee jumping. Do you really learn something through them? It's just a way of exciting oneself. Even wise people jump, just to get some rush. The sense that usually comes to you on the verge of death. It's an activity of fooling the senses and mind prepares for death. What do you think?

Anax
March 20, 2006, 03:30 PM
I wonder what what is the meaning of this discussion, what is the topic, what is the goal, what is the point? From my point of view it's an open discussion, left to be taken where "the stream" takes it (one of those I like), where each of us shares their opinions on whatever has been said for the others to see, contemplate upon and generally do what they like with. Personally I really like to see other opinions and constantly evolve my own. Why? Because it feels good! :amuse

Through bangee jumping you get to see what it's like to fall from a high place. You get to see how your body would react to imminent death. These things alone are educative enough in my opinion. To get close to death, I wonder how much that could affect a person view of life... I'm not trying to prove that people bangee jump for those reasons, I guess most of them do it for the rush, still, it IS an educative experience.

Concerning the similarity of any state with death, I'll say we can't know. We haven't died, we can't talk to the dead and if we could, we still wouldn't know how the state of death has altered their perception. In the end, what event isn't affected by the observer? Even if two or more people here agree, will they truly be having the same opinion on the same matter? Can two opinions ever be the same? Can a word ever be perceived exactly the same by two people?


Even if you steal all the senses a man still has his life and mind. He has memories and he can live inside them for the rest of his short life (no food and moisture whatsoever -> make conclusions). That's how the idea of existance kicks in. At the same time, being unable to sense things equals being unable to interact with them.


Does being senseless mean you're definately going to die? Can't a person be in a state of comma in a hospital, feeling nothing, but still being alive because others keep him? Also, couldn't a completely senseless but also "healthy" person be kept alive? I think they could.
Now, does being senseless equal being unable to interact with anything? A senseless person could be lying flat, rolling downhill, drowning in a lake, getting stabbed by another person who's purpose in life is to serve as an example in my post, or anything else your twisted imagination can come up with, and still that person wouldn't know the difference! They could be moving their hands frantically to test their functionality, but they wouldn't be getting any signal back from their hands so they wouldn't know if their hands did move...
What I'm trying to say here is that being senseless doesn't equal inability of interaction nor does it lead to certain death.



Which is better? Living a carefull, but long life seeing many things or living a wild life, experiencing many things in a short time and dying in a young age?

That's closely related to what we spoke of in the posts above, but in a different context. IMO, living a quiet life is the same as living senseless. That's rather existance, not living.


What is "better" than what and with what criteria? What is the goal you are planning to achieve that one or the other would help you achieve in a "better" (= more eficient) way?

Seeing things from my point of view there's no reason or meaning to life. You can make what you want out of it. Personally I generally lead "a quiet life" with the occasional "outburst". Am I somewhere between existance and life? What is the difference between existing and living?

Hmm... I'd like to see Crimson's "out of the box" opinions too... Where are you Crimson?! :yelling :D

Predator
March 20, 2006, 06:51 PM
I wonder what what is the meaning of this discussion, what is the topic, what is the goal, what is the point? From my point of view it's an open discussion, left to be taken where "the stream" takes it (one of those I like), where each of us shares their opinions on whatever has been said for the others to see, contemplate upon and generally do what they like with. Personally I really like to see other opinions and constantly evolve my own. Why? Because it feels good! :amuse

Well, you're quite right. Mainly, this is a place to talk about ideas of a higher plane, but at the same time it can serve as a location, where some "off topic" discussions can be redirected ("to keep things organized" as someone GK has said).



What I'm trying to say here is that being senseless doesn't equal inability of interaction nor does it lead to certain death.


But is that "interaction"? That's a one sided influence with no response or benefit to one of the sides involved. And as much as I've learned about coma, people sense things in that state. So the senseless state mentioned above is completely hipotethical.



Personally I generally lead "a quiet life" with the occasional "outburst".
...
Hmm... I'd like to see Crimson's "out of the box" opinions too... Where are you Crimson?! :yelling :D


That would be great indeed. Come to think of it: "Quiet life", "Out of the box", "Balance"....
Fantastic, how many different views we have here. We must create MH-UN somewhere. :p

Bibichan
March 20, 2006, 08:03 PM
"Cogito ergo sum" is a commonspread Latin phrase. Everyone knows it, but why do you think I lenghtened the sentence? It was on purpose.
"C.e.s." is used as "I sense therefore I am".
My idea is "Cogito ergo sum, Operatio ergo vivere"


Ah, sorry, I seem to have been unclear. I didn't say that you lengthened the sentence, but that a lot of people shorten it and only use "cogito ergo sum". :)



That's closely related to what we spoke of in the posts above, but in a different context. IMO, living a quiet life is the same as living senseless. That's rather existance, not living.


But what about people who seem to live a quiet and boring life to others, but don't actually do? For instance, my classmates think of me as a boring and good girl that never goes against the rules or never does anything exciting. My friends know that I'm not anything like that. Even if I generally stick to the rules, I have no problem with questioning them. With my friends I tend to be very outgoing, active and a bit crazy sometimes.
Although I'm not exactly proud of it, I wear a mask for those people that don't know me. There's the me the others see and the true me. But I think every single person wears a mask to protect themselves. What do you think about that?

xallisto
March 21, 2006, 01:00 AM
A mask is necassary since most people are subjective and will never question thier own views. so its very hard to vioce a different view in front of them.

ill pose a slightly different question.

if a child was born with no senses with no input into thier brain, they would never learn language and thus never learn introspection and so they would never evolve into anything other than an empty shell. would you say that this child is truly alive?

it comes down to what a persons defenition of alive is how do you define alive.

is it something that is made from organs and a heart that beats is life really this simple or to be truly alive do you have to know that your alive?

if this child is totally incapable of knowing of its own existence, since it is totally unable to think then it cant really be alive.

i was having this debate with a friend of mine and hos opinion was that he belived that mind has a BIOS so to speak very basic thoughts that goven the most baisc functions.

but i arged that even if these BIOS settings existed they would only govern the very basic of function's such as the abilty to store memories and eventually these BIOS settings would evolve to the point in which they could these memories into a usefull context, such as words, faces and places and so the foundation of a childs mind and memories is formed eventually this foundation get bigger and bigger as more content and context is learned, eventually aftermany years the child starts to be able to make his own judgement and opinion using the contexts and facts that he has learned.

well strayed off subject there a bit.

back to the subject, these BIOS would rely on the senses to gather the memories to create the foundation of the childs mind.

to which my friend reply'ed that he belived that these simple functions even without any input still contitutes life.

and the difference between the brains BIOS and a computer BIOS for is the fact that given the chance the brains BIOS will evolve and that is the real meaning of bieng alive.

well sorry to ramble on lol

Predator
March 21, 2006, 11:23 AM
You don't ramble at all Xal. Nor you stray off topic (rather, it's OK to do that in this thread as long as it involves philosophy).

That child you mentioned exists. There are no signs of living. He's not even able to think because he has nothing to think about. This is a perfect example, how "living" is seperated from "existing". It's the most extreme case, thanks. Other case of "existance" is leading a live the normal and none way - just spending the time between birth and death somehow hollow.

Gold Knight
March 23, 2006, 05:22 AM
Preddy = Socrates of MH? :amuse

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the thread's topic early on, by the way.

Predator
March 23, 2006, 07:18 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding on the thread's topic early on, by the way.


That's OK! Sh*** happens, life goes on. Drop by more often and share your opinions too. :amuse



Preddy = Socrates of MH? :amuse


Oh, really?! Am I really asking that much? btw, I like the way Socrates made his philosophical dialogues with others. So I take it as a great compliment, hahahaha.

Gold Knight
March 23, 2006, 10:11 PM
Actually I really like Socrates, but I'm no Socrates. I try to avoid pondering on life because when I overthink, I tend to end up getting into a bad mood. You'll have to forgive my inactivity here ;)

Predator
March 23, 2006, 11:18 PM
Actually I really like Socrates, but I'm no Socrates. I try to avoid pondering on life because when I overthink, I tend to end up getting into a bad mood. You'll have to forgive my inactivity here ;)


Funny, it's the exact opposite to me. I end up in a good mood. It must be related to the way of thinking and character traits, cause I sometimes end up with an idea that IMO could make the world a better place, if majority of the humanity accepted it. Good mood guaranteed. Optimism rules!

Oh yeah, and I forgive you. Although there's nothing to forgive. Same as I may miss visiting some threads too often, so may you. I shall bear no negative emotions because of that. Nobody's omnipotent (maybe I should have said "almighty", but this sounds a bit more appropriate to the situation).

# "I'm tired of being friends, let's pretend to be enemies." (some song)
# Every single person needs just one thing to be happy, but he doesn't know what it is.

abdulahi
April 13, 2006, 05:00 AM
its a bit of wired thread to start but i just wanted to say something that was running through my mind about perfect. please shed some light on this thread if get what i am trying to say or if you ever think like this or etc etc etc

when i hear something is perfect i automatically think it is imperfect, because something perfect becomes dull as it becomes somewhat predictable. and if it becomes dull does it not somewhat stop being perfect, so, if something was perfect it would end up being imperfect.

and a question stands of when does something turn from imperfect to perfect (i know this can vary between topics) but heres my dilemma, if somehing turns from imperfect to perfect, will it not then become imperfect again??????

i tried to explain this to a friend :sweatdrop and he was so confused to say the least. i 've propbably confused everyone but i hope theres a soul out there that understands this craziness

any views, opinions, help, theories, number to a mental home(just kidding), believes, attitude towards this is ever so welcomed. :leepose

Predator
April 13, 2006, 05:13 AM
There's nothing perfect in this world. Not only, because of your idea. Also it's because of human nature.
Several sciences have defined that human needs are unlimited, because if some of the needs are fulfilled, new needs arise. That's why we can never reach perfection, we can only step further up.

Remember the saying that you can't jump up higher than your bellybutton. :amuse

abdulahi
April 13, 2006, 05:58 AM
when something is perfect is it said to be complete; so good that nothing of the kind could be better; and which has attained its purpose. im wondering if anyone, using these, can think of something that is perfect?

perfect is a state of mind, i believe, and thus it can exist but will it also not be subjected to judgement.

Rampages
April 13, 2006, 01:36 PM
What if I anhilitated you at ping-pong 21-0 ? Wouldn't that be a perfect game ? :p

EDIT: I took a look at the romance thread, and perhaps you meant there is no perfect person ? In that case, it depends on your personal beliefs, whether or not you believe in a perfect being such as God or not.

abdulahi
April 13, 2006, 04:48 PM
What if I anhilitated you at ping-pong 21-0 ? Wouldn't that be a perfect game ? :p that would be PERFECT

on the note of the perfect person, can they really exist?????

heres what im thinking. no such thing as the perfect person, unless theres effort from both parties. but if effort is needed would it then not be imperfect, but if ends up being the persons perfect for you after all the effort from both of you, would that imperfect person then not be perfect.
in simple terms - can a perfect person exist? Yes and no! (but thats just my view)

i hope i havent confused anyone :leepose

Rampages
April 14, 2006, 03:27 PM
Humans are not perfect at all, from an objective point of view. Believing someone is doesn't make that person so.

abdulahi
April 14, 2006, 04:34 PM
thanx for input rampage. im going to stop posting on this thread that i started because everytime i post i make less and less sense.

but please feel free to post on anything you wish to wish to say on this topic of perfect and imperfect. as im still interested to hear what you have to say.

Topic merged with the Philosophy thread. - P

The Boff
April 15, 2006, 09:42 AM
i had a revelation yesterday. i work for 13 hour at the cinema yesterday and unfortunatly
i didnt have time to take my lunch break. needless to say when i got home at like 11 at night
i was pretty hungry. so i started making some food and the wait was awful. the water took time
to boil, seemed like forever. but then my food was done and i could finally eat. and i ate.
the process of eating didnt give much joy but. when i had finished eating and i leaned back
in my sofa and felt absolutely perfect. thats when it hit me. The best things in life actually are
free. it wasnt the eating that was good. it was the feeling afterwards. just sitting there feeling like
im king of the world just beacause im full. and there are lots of stuff like that. this may sound weird but bear with me.
you really really need to pee. youre possibly standing in line to the toilet. and then finally you can do
your business. im pretty sure everybody will agree with me when i say that it feels gooooooood.
Or we could take another example, you wake up. not by an alarm or anything like that. by yourself.
you are totally rested the sun is shining outside (not in your face that can ruin a lot). you can hear
some birdsong. thats such a great feeling.

so what im saying is this: I really think that the best things in life are your emotions and feelings.
and them you dont have to pay for. therefore the best things in life actually are free.
whats your opinions on this people. do you agree disagree. want to prove me wrong?
go for it!

Leen
April 15, 2006, 10:13 AM
i had a revelation yesterday. i work for 13 hour at the cinema yesterday and unfortunatly
i didnt have time to take my lunch break. needless to say when i got home at like 11 at night
i was pretty hungry. so i started making some food and the wait was awful. the water took time
to boil, seemed like forever. but then my food was done and i could finally eat. and i ate.
the process of eating didnt give much joy but. when i had finished eating and i leaned back
in my sofa and felt absolutely perfect. thats when it hit me. The best things in life actually are
free. it wasnt the eating that was good. it was the feeling afterwards. just sitting there feeling like
im king of the world just beacause im full. and there are lots of stuff like that. this may sound weird but bear with me.
you really really need to pee. youre possibly standing in line to the toilet. and then finally you can do
your business. im pretty sure everybody will agree with me when i say that it feels gooooooood.
Or we could take another example, you wake up. not by an alarm or anything like that. by yourself.
you are totally rested the sun is shining outside (not in your face that can ruin a lot). you can hear
some birdsong. thats such a great feeling.

so what im saying is this: I really think that the best things in life are your emotions and feelings.
and them you dont have to pay for. therefore the best things in life actually are free.
whats your opinions on this people. do you agree disagree. want to prove me wrong?
go for it!


http://mangahelpers.com/forum/index.php?topic=3066.0

Try it out and tell me what you feel about this world and love. If you can feel happy while spreading love to animals/people/plants/objects.. etc, I am sure you will feel happy everyday. Feelings and emotions make us human. We should nurture them with care and let them grow spiritually, outwardly and inwardly. Try LS no jutsu. You will feel different.

eQuek
April 16, 2006, 02:26 PM
i had a revelation yesterday. i work for 13 hour at the cinema yesterday and unfortunatly
i didnt have time to take my lunch break. needless to say when i got home at like 11 at night
i was pretty hungry. so i started making some food and the wait was awful. the water took time
to boil, seemed like forever. but then my food was done and i could finally eat. and i ate.
the process of eating didnt give much joy but. when i had finished eating and i leaned back
in my sofa and felt absolutely perfect. thats when it hit me. The best things in life actually are
free. it wasnt the eating that was good. it was the feeling afterwards. just sitting there feeling like
im king of the world just beacause im full. and there are lots of stuff like that. this may sound weird but bear with me.
you really really need to pee. youre possibly standing in line to the toilet. and then finally you can do
your business. im pretty sure everybody will agree with me when i say that it feels gooooooood.
Or we could take another example, you wake up. not by an alarm or anything like that. by yourself.
you are totally rested the sun is shining outside (not in your face that can ruin a lot). you can hear
some birdsong. thats such a great feeling.

so what im saying is this: I really think that the best things in life are your emotions and feelings.
and them you dont have to pay for. therefore the best things in life actually are free.
whats your opinions on this people. do you agree disagree. want to prove me wrong?
go for it!


But the food you ate wasnt free, neither was the sofa. Weren't they required for this feeling? And to be able to wake up after sleeping safely means that there must be peace. Peace isn't usually free either, to gain something you must lose something.
Black and White
Evil and Good
Yin and Yang
Light and Darkness
Err... what I'm trying to say is that there is always an other side of most things. Or something like that, I've forgotten the point that I was trying to make :confused

The Boff
April 16, 2006, 03:04 PM
But the food you ate wasnt free, neither was the sofa. Weren't they required for this feeling? And to be able to wake up after sleeping safely means that there must be peace. Peace isn't usually free either, to gain something you must lose something.
Black and White
Evil and Good
Yin and Yang
Light and Darkness
Err... what I'm trying to say is that there is always an other side of most things. Or something like that, I've forgotten the point that I was trying to make  :confused

i know exactly what you mean and i thought about it when i wrote it.

but there is a possibility to eat free food. right? go out and hunt. peoples been doing it since we were
apes. and i dont need the sofa... i can just sit outside and look at the sun on a rock. and hey i dont
a toilet to pee..... so what im saying is that you could gain these great feelings in other ways.
my way of getting them is only the quickest and least painfull way. but im pretty sure that
the cavemen could feel good about there day to.

abdulahi
April 17, 2006, 03:53 AM
i had a revelation yesterday. i work for 13 hour at the cinema yesterday and unfortunatly
i didnt have time to take my lunch break. needless to say when i got home at like 11 at night
i was pretty hungry. so i started making some food and the wait was awful. the water took time
to boil, seemed like forever. but then my food was done and i could finally eat. and i ate.
the process of eating didnt give much joy but. when i had finished eating and i leaned back
in my sofa and felt absolutely perfect. thats when it hit me. The best things in life actually are
free. it wasnt the eating that was good. it was the feeling afterwards. just sitting there feeling like
im king of the world just beacause im full. and there are lots of stuff like that. this may sound weird but bear with me.
you really really need to pee. youre possibly standing in line to the toilet. and then finally you can do
your business. im pretty sure everybody will agree with me when i say that it feels gooooooood.
Or we could take another example, you wake up. not by an alarm or anything like that. by yourself.
you are totally rested the sun is shining outside (not in your face that can ruin a lot). you can hear
some birdsong. thats such a great feeling.

so what im saying is this: I really think that the best things in life are your emotions and feelings.
and them you dont have to pay for. therefore the best things in life actually are free.
whats your opinions on this people. do you agree disagree. want to prove me wrong?
go for it!
i must say i agree with to some degree. however (this is my big but of the day) THERE IS ALWAYS THE UNDERLINE COST. emotions and feelings may be free, and they may be the best thing in life but for you to expereince those, you need to be in the right conditions, or meet the right Requirements, and those are the things that cost money, cash, funds, etc etc. let me explain this using your example.
1.
just sitting there feeling like im king of the world just beacause im full. the cost comes from the food you bought, the sofa you sit on, the rent you pay.
2..
you wake up. not by an alarm or anything like that. by yourself. god knows i love that feeling. but it still cost us something doesnt it. like the bed you had to buy, or again the rent you must be paying,(and if you guys are familiar with the business/economics term ''Opportunity Cost'' that is also a next cost to this example) etc etc...

like i said before i agree with you to some extant, the best things may be free but they almost always have a cost behind them.

i say ''almost always'' because, let me use another of boffenjl's example, the one about peeing. there is no cost for peeing as there are free toilets (well at least where im from) and the feeling you said boffenjl couldnt agree with you more

Brede
April 17, 2006, 04:13 AM
hmm...there's always a 'but' to everything in life isn't there? To me, true joy comes from being content. It is hard for humans to learn to be content and this, I think, lies at the root of all evil. Contentment is a miracle in itself because it requires us to know and recognize what is 'enough'. That takes true wisdom. :)

Kusachu
April 29, 2006, 03:19 AM
philosophy buffs: After reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" which is about discrediting the 'the noble savage', 'the ghost in the machine', and 'the blank slate' theories in favor of evolutionary phsychology and sociobiology, i have this to say: WHAT A LOAD OF CIRCULAR BANTER! DOES THAT MAN HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN HIS HEAD?? I'm not saying EVERYTHING he said was crap, but as far as reading him goes, THE MAN IS ANNOYING! He uses so many quotes (from people who DO actually have original thoughts)... at least once or twice per page!! And did i mention that he is annoying? His opinions...they are just soooo...jackassity? IDK. He shouldn't have been paid for that book. It should have been aborted. If it was someone else writing it, it may have been good...but no. It WAS funny sometimes, but that was only because the man sounded like a JACKASS! Okay, I'm done ranting about what i hated most about 'the philosophy of human nature'. Thank you for reading! XD

siegfried
April 29, 2006, 04:56 AM
its a bit of wired thread to start but i just wanted to say something that was running through my mind about perfect. please shed some light on this thread if get what i am trying to say or if you ever think like this or etc etc etc

when i hear something is perfect i automatically think it is imperfect, because something perfect becomes dull as it becomes somewhat predictable. and if it becomes dull does it not somewhat stop being perfect, so, if something was perfect it would end up being imperfect.

and a question stands of when does something turn from imperfect to perfect (i know this can vary between topics) but heres my dilemma, if somehing turns from imperfect to perfect, will it not then become imperfect again??????

i tried to explain this to a friend :sweatdrop and he was so confused to say the least. i 've propbably confused everyone but i hope theres a soul out there that understands this craziness

any views, opinions, help, theories, number to a mental home(just kidding), believes, attitude towards this is ever so welcomed. :leepose


hey perfect exits.look at the solar system it is perfect.the books say "if sun were a centimeter closer to the world there would be a huge chaos.human wouldnt survive." the whole universe is perfect.actually human body is perfect too.can you think of anything to add to your body that will make your body more convenient?when microbes comes into the body,your body always find the best way to disinfect them.


[br]Posted at: 29 April 2006, 02:25:47_________________________________________________I like the word "if I had known sth,it is the fact that I dont know anything." but did you know this was wrong?.it should be "if I had known sth,it is the fact that I only know one thing"

well forgive the stupid translations.anyway it is very meaningful when you understand the true meaning behind the words.

"does the true knowledge exist?", "can you say what is true or wrong accurately?"

think about this.all the things that you know comes from your senses.what if your sense is misleading you?think a world like "the matrix" can you still be sure that there is an absolute truth?what if everything is just an illusion?


this will be offtopic but did you know aristotales and socrates and all those big greek philosophers were gay? :blink (no offense anax)
I wonder if does gays think deeper.it is very interesting.

Kusachu
April 29, 2006, 06:42 AM
this will be offtopic but did you know aristotales and socrates and all those big greek philosophers were gay?  :blink (no offense anax)
I wonder if does gays think deeper.it is very interesting.


Socrates also had a wife and children, or so I've been told. :)

It was very common, I’ve heard, for Greek men to take male lovers in that period of history. Also, it was common during the Italian Renaissance, and among samurai in feudal Japan, and probably a whole lot of other cultures around the world and throughout history.

I don't think the issue is about 'gay' people thinking deeper, but maybe it could be that some folks are just more open minded?

siegfried
April 29, 2006, 08:39 AM
Socrates also had a wife and children, or so I've been told. :)

It was very common, I’ve heard, for Greek men to take male lovers in that period of history. Also, it was common during the Italian Renaissance, and among samurai in feudal Japan, and probably a whole lot of other cultures around the world and throughout history.

I don't think the issue is about 'gay' people thinking deeper, but maybe it could be that some folks are just more open minded?



ehehe open mindedness sounds right.

well in those times some people were extremmely wealthy(talking about greece) and they didnt need to work.so they needed a occupation to canalize their interests.they had lots of time to enjoy the life and think.they did all the extremme things just for the sake of trying.think of vomitting people just to be able to test the flavour of more food.
that is why people started to think deeply because they had nothing better to do.joys and thinking was all they were doing.

Brede
April 30, 2006, 11:39 AM
Socrates also had a wife and children, or so I've been told. :)


that reminds me of an anecdote i heard: Socrates had this advise for young men. "By all means marry. If you find a good wife, you will be very happy. If you don't, you will be a very good philosopher." History tells us that Socrates was married... :smile-big

Rampages
April 30, 2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah, lol. And he had problems with his wife throughout their marriage XD

Brede
April 30, 2006, 11:43 AM
Yeah, lol. And he had problems with his wife throughout their marriage XD


so really, we should thank Socrates's wife for all his words of wisdom :p

Rampages
April 30, 2006, 11:45 AM
Poor guy :neutral

Kusachu
April 30, 2006, 02:02 PM
I heard that Socrates' wife used to hide his clothes so he wouldn't go into athens to philosophize, but instead of staying home, he just showed up naked. XD

For real, Socrates is my hero. XDDDDDDDD It is my dream to corrupt the youth!

Brede
May 01, 2006, 11:38 AM
I heard that Socrates' wife used to hide his clothes so he wouldn't go into athens to philosophize, but instead of staying home, he just showed up naked.  XD 


lol, that would explain all those naked Greek statues of socrates!

Predator
May 01, 2006, 12:48 PM
lol, that would explain all those naked Greek statues of socrates!


No, no, no! Naked statues explain their opinion on a perfect body. Those were mostly gods or half-gods shown in those statues. They were as always assumed to be flawless, so they had to be perfect (in ALL places).

Speaking of which? Is godly being flawless or not?
I think it's not because, if it were, an omnipotent being would make everything as flawless as himself. So I dare to say that either godly beings don't exist, either they've their flaws same as everything else, either the world is flawless only when having flaws in it.

What? If we speak about philosophy and make philosophy ourselves, then we should make it bigtime!

Kusachu
May 02, 2006, 05:24 PM
Trivia: How to tell a classic Greek sculpture from a Roman copy.

The Greek sculpture will be naked, the Roman copy will have the infamous fig leaf--or similar-- covering the genitalia (Catholic church and all...naked is dirty).

Coincidentally, there are far more Roman copies than there are true Greek sculptures of the time period because many of the original sculptures were destroyed by war and natural disasters and such. (The Romans had a big hard on for the Greeks during the Renaissance XD) See: Humanism


And a little joke:

The Greeks supposedly won the Persian War (I think that’s the right war…) because when the Persians saw a bunch of screaming, naked Greeks running at them, they decided to turn around and go home.

Brede
May 03, 2006, 04:26 AM
The Greeks supposedly won the Persian War (I think that’s the right war…) because when the Persians saw a bunch of screaming, naked Greeks running at them, they decided to turn around and go home.


ooh, the greeks would have been in trouble if the persians had Sai on their team then.

CheckMate
May 06, 2006, 07:48 AM
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions.

Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. (Frank Outlaw)


A champion is someone who gets up, even when he can't (a wiseman)

Anax
May 07, 2006, 12:04 AM
hey perfect exits.look at the solar system it is perfect.the books say "if sun were a centimeter closer to the world there would be a huge chaos.human wouldnt survive." the whole universe is perfect.actually human body is perfect too.can you think of anything to add to your body that will make your body more convenient?when microbes comes into the body,your body always find the best way to disinfect them.


Is the universe perfect? You say so, but is it so? Whose decision is it whether it is perfect or not? What is the definition of perfect? In Greek the word is ancient Greek and related to the words "end" and "purpose", so I've heard a professor say that perfect is that which has reached the end of its purpose, that it can't get any better. So who decides what has and hasn't reached its purpose?

As for my body, it does age doesn't it? I will die won't I? Did anybody ask me if I want to die? Germs? Our body can't always fight 'em off and in the end they kill us. Do they care? Without us they die as well but they don't care because their averege life span is a few dozen hours. Even if some generations of germs kill me, some of them will live to kill another person or animal. If you see individual living entities as cells of their species, and the species as an individual then we all die for the greater good! Each new generation of animals is stronger and better adapted to the world, so that the whole species will never die. Humans? I think we are a twisted exception since only we make wars among other things no animal would ever do. What are we? An infestation perhaps... Of course that's just a personal view :tem In the game of life and death I see around me there seems to be a constant exchange of energy for the sake of passing down your DNA to the next generation... We strive to live so that we can die after having children so that they can do the same in an endless meaningless cycle. The humans seem to be an exception like no other, doing all sorts of meaningless things, from helping other entities in their own meaningless cycle, to massively killing their own... Does this make sense? Is there any point? Who am I to decide? What I know is what "feels" right and what "feels" wrong. Of course smashing someone's head after they have hurt you does "feel" right but that's another story.

On a side note, inspired by Leen's LS no Jutsu, I was thinking that a lot of people are approaching Yoga or sports as a means to feel good... chemically. You see there's a number of lovely chemicals produced by your own body called Endorphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorfin) that are released into our blood stream during such actions as sex or physical excercise and I think during meditation (relaxation). I've heard that Serotonin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin) is a hormone that affects our mood and our sleeping pattern. So, in the morning, when the sunlight hits your eyes serotonin is what tells your body "rise and shine", it makes you all happy and perhaps it is what makes men horny in the morning. Wikipedia doesn't say the things I've read elsewhere unfortunately but it has so many other info that it's ok. Anyway, what I'm (sadly) trying to say here is that a number of chemicals in our brain affect us more than we want to admit (because that would mean a whole lot of nasty things).
So... why do we do what we do and why do we see things the way we see them? Are people thinking of sex so much because it's a natural drug? Do we do what we do just to feel good? It certainly seems that way to me although it's kind of scary... the things that make certain people feel good that is. In the end, are we but a cell that lives it's short life doing what a bunch of chemicals dictate so that the species will live on? And what does it matter if the species does live on? Is it because the species likes life and wants to live? Is it that simple? I really can't tell...

[br]Posted at: 29 April 2006, 02:25:47_________________________________________________I like the word "if I had known sth,it is the fact that I dont know anything." but did you know this was wrong?.it should be "if I had known sth,it is the fact that I only know one thing"

From what little ancient Greek I know the ancient "Εν οίδα, ότι ουδέν οίδα" would translate (word for word) to: "One knew, that nothing knew". This of course makes no sense in English =p The verb used is also irregular and if memory serves this version is a Past Tense beta, as we call it. I think it could be perceived as "I learnt one thing, that I learnt nothing". Personally I don't think that phrases that have come to be almost worshipped around the globe should be overanalyzed. Either way I hope that was usefull input.


think about this.all the things that you know comes from your senses.what if your sense is misleading you?think a world like "the matrix" can you still be sure that there is an absolute truth?what if everything is just an illusion?


Check what this man said! Parmenides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides)... and yes, he is Greek =p


this will be offtopic but did you know aristotales and socrates and all those big greek philosophers were gay? :blink (no offense anax)
I wonder if does gays think deeper.it is very interesting.


I don't know if they were gay for a fact, though what I have read is that the people those days thought of love as such a higher feeling that gender was unimportant. In Hagakure, Yamamoto has a passage on love and mentions both heterosexual and homosexual relationships alike. I guess people in the past where more open minded.

CheckMate
May 07, 2006, 12:14 AM
waaooo.. that's quite a lot of phiolsophy

Predator
May 07, 2006, 03:48 AM
waaooo.. that's quite a lot of phiolsophy


What else did you expect. You don't know Anax yet. Some of his other posts are wayyyyyyyy longer.
We believe he has some of those greek philosophers in his bloodstream. :smile-big

@Anax I'm not so sure I agree with "I learnt one thing, that I learnt nothing". There's another sentence I tend to agree with much much more. That is "The more I learn, the less I know" (please don't mix this up with the anecdote). That says that the more a person learns, the more he knows, but at the same time he finds more unknown things. To put it simply - "Every answer asks two more questions". We can never know everything. It's only possible to know much. Only a fool could say he knows all. A smart man would say he knows much, but at the same time he would see more things yet to find the answer than most people.

svart_lotus
May 12, 2006, 02:21 AM
So, in the morning, when the sunlight hits your eyes serotonin is what tells your body "rise and shine", it makes you all happy and perhaps it is what makes men horny in the morning. Wikipedia doesn't say the things I've read elsewhere unfortunately but it has so many other info that it's ok.


The pressure from the urine bladder stimulates your prostate, thats what awaken the beast :)

Rampages
May 14, 2006, 03:30 PM
The pressure from the urine bladder stimulates your prostate, thats what awaken the beast :)


:loool

Now that's what I call a philosophy thread :p

svart_lotus
May 14, 2006, 07:35 PM
It could be vital to know, one day our lives may depend on it :D

Anax
May 15, 2006, 04:28 AM
It's not a joke! Thank you Svart for your imput, it saved me from repeating the same assumption! At least now I know and when I talk about serotonin in the future I'll only mention "mood", and not make assumptions. In fact I'll edit my post right now :tem

@Preddy --> I'm not sure I can even see Socrates' view on the matter... perhaps I'm much too young. Still, on what you said, I got the picture of a circle in my head: the more you know the larger the circle of your knoweldge, the larger your view of your ignorance in the perimeter of your circle. Is that clear? :sweat

Rampages
May 15, 2006, 07:34 PM
the more you know the larger the circle of your knoweldge, the larger your view of your ignorance in the perimeter of your circle. Is that clear?

You lost me at circle lol

Brede
May 18, 2006, 04:43 AM
"The more I learn, the less I know"

Very true! Its also physically impossible to know 'everything' at any given point of time as something 'new' is happening evey minute. compare what we 'know' now to what was known say 100 years ago. take science for example. Not so long ago, the smallest thing 'known' to man was an atom. some years passed then miraculously the atom was blasted apart and we got electrons, protons and neutrons. some more years passed and we got particles and quarks. instead of answers, we ended up with more questions.

Rampages
May 20, 2006, 05:29 PM
The more I learn, the more I think :)

Kusachu
May 21, 2006, 05:46 AM
How do I know i am not being tricked by an evil genius (MFG! IT'S ITACHI! :o)??  How do i know I'm not in a pod (MFG! It's Zetsu! :darn)?  XD 


Dude, wtf is up with people freaking out over the notion of determinism?  I don't get it.  There are always a few of them in class who voilently reject anything that is even remotely associated with determinism.  They are bent on having absolute free will at all costs.  I don't get it at all.  What is so scary about having an ultimate destiny as aposed to choosing it?  I bet they feel exactly the same.

Adam_xx
May 21, 2006, 05:58 AM
A Basic Law of Science...

#Never spit into the wind

Rampages
May 21, 2006, 10:15 AM
I agree with Kusachu on determinism. Some people fear the concept, so they refuse to acknowledge the content.

Kusachu
May 21, 2006, 02:11 PM
A Basic Law of Science...

#Never spit into the wind


this is also true of pissing. XD

Brede
May 23, 2006, 02:23 AM
Age old sayings sometimes contradict each other. For e.g., how do you reconcile "2 heads are better than 1" or "The more the merrier" with "Too many cooks spoil the broth"?

I'm sure there are more instances of 'contradicting' sayings :tem

glasskatana
May 26, 2006, 01:00 AM
I just thought of this randomly but I might as well post it here.
If life feels empty, at least there's a lot of room for oppurtunity. :smile-big

svart_lotus
May 26, 2006, 09:27 AM
How do I know i am not being tricked by an evil genius (MFG! IT'S ITACHI! :o)?? How do i know I'm not in a pod (MFG! It's Zetsu! :darn)? XD


Dude, wtf is up with people freaking out over the notion of determinism? I don't get it. There are always a few of them in class who voilently reject anything that is even remotely associated with determinism. They are bent on having absolute free will at all costs. I don't get it at all. What is so scary about having an ultimate destiny as aposed to choosing it? I bet they feel exactly the same.


Dont you think there is a destiny, but we have choice? Like The collective subconsciousness? We can follow our destiny or slowly fade away in our own ego.

Leen
May 26, 2006, 12:25 PM
Love is like a mountain
Its hard to climb
But when you finally conquer it
The view is wonderful.

:) Love is wonderful.

svart_lotus
May 27, 2006, 08:52 AM
Love is like a mountain
Its hard to climb
But when you finally conquer it
The view is wonderful.

:) Love is wonderful.



I agree, with some changes:

Love is like a mountain
You lose half of your friends on the way up
It gets harder to breath
When you get up there, you can stay there and die or go for the foot, either way you will tell your self that it was worth it.

Thats my experience. Maybe i over did it, but its pretty close to the truth :)

siegfried
May 27, 2006, 07:45 PM
Love is like a mountain
You lose half of your friends on the way up
It gets harder to breath
When you get up there, you can stay there and die or go for the foot, either way you will tell your self that it was worth it.

Thats my experience. Maybe i over did it, but its pretty close to the truth :)


absolutely agree.that is what I witnessed too.well not myself but from friends.

Kusachu
May 30, 2006, 12:02 PM
Dont you think there is a destiny, but we have choice? Like The collective subconsciousness? We can follow our destiny or slowly fade away in our own ego.


I look at it like this, if the notion of determinism is true, then choice is not ever going to be an option but i will never know the difference. I may tell myself that i choose things, but the reality is that choice would only be an illusion. If the opposite is true, then there is no possibilty of destiny and everything i experience is of my own chioce i will still never know the difference. I don't really believe in the "soft" determinism associated with the ontelogical argument. But i know quite a few people who insist that they are in control of every choice they make no matter what and harshly deny even the slightest hint of fate. I think it is because those people need to feel like they are in control and they don't alow themselves to see any other way than that because to do so would force them to acknowledge that they may not have control. [br]Posted on: May 30, 2006, 09:31:03 AM_________________________________________________on the subject of ego, Freud's notion of ego is the sense ourselves being an individual and what copes with the restrictions placed on us by "reality". The ego is simply the middle ground between our selfish survival 'instincts' (sex, food, shelter, rest) and our notions of morality (social traditions and belief systems). In such a case, i think it would be more dangerous to fade into ones Id or Super ego. People with Antisocial personality disorder lack a super ego to tell them what is right and what is wrong; hence they have no concept of compassion or empathy. They are entirely self serving individuals. There are problems with being too wrapped up in one's super ego as well. When i think of such a situation, it brings to mind religious fanatics, bigots, and a whole range of personality and mood disorders. Though, i am no expert on such things, so it really isn't my place to say. guh. My head hurts now...XP No more thinking for me!!

svart_lotus
May 30, 2006, 10:26 PM
I see it more like this: If there is something bigger then us, wouldent it be bored if it hade full controle? Like playing sims with full controle :D
I do belive there is something bigger then us, call it god, satan, Odin or anything els, but so far it points at the "World soul" or The collective subconsciousness, and if there is something bigger then we might have a purpose. But if it is for entertainment, then we have control, if it is a practical use, then we dont have control. But there is still a big chanse that we have a single purpose, and as long as whe have compleated that we can do what we want as long as it doesent interfer with the grand plan, right?

glasskatana
May 30, 2006, 10:32 PM
ah. How about we dicuss heaven hell etc.
In my opinion the best afterlife solution is reincarnation. Why? heaven just has flaws. What if you marry someone you love deeply and he/she dies. You are saddened and mourn, but eventually remarry another man/woman and then he/she dies/ You die. All three of you meet up in heaven. Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died? There are too many uncertanties. Also with reincarnation, all things become connected an affect eachother for all eternity. Plus the universe actually DOES reincarnate. When energy is used it is converted into unusable heat energy. This heat energy escapes into the universe. Eventually when all the energy of the entire universe is use and all mass has been converted into heat energy it will condense and form a super heavy form of energy that will explode... the big bang. We could be living in the 1,000,000th reincarnation of this universe.

siegfried
May 31, 2006, 10:19 AM
it is true that we dont know the reasons of our existinces.All religious people think that this world is a test for us but why we are we being tested?

are we the entertainments of our god?if he is the god shouldnt he not need to amuse himself?

according to my religion fate exits.but this doesnt mean we are controlled.god knows everything even before they occur according to his supremme sight.the things you are doing are your destiny but this doesnt mean you are doing things because of your destiny.for example we know when the eclipses are going to happen but they are not happening because we know them.

that is the essence of fate.but another question comes to mind ,if he knew all the things would happen even before he created the universe,why did he create it anyway?

we cant comprehend some issues and destiny is one of them.can you comprehend infinite?human mind is too incapable for these issues.[br]Posted on: 31 May 2006, 07:52:08_________________________________________________

ah. How about we dicuss heaven hell etc.
In my opinion the best afterlife solution is reincarnation. Why? heaven just has flaws. What if you marry someone you love deeply and he/she dies. You are saddened and mourn, but eventually remarry another man/woman and then he/she dies/ You die. All three of you meet up in heaven. Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died? There are too many uncertanties. Also with reincarnation, all things become connected an affect eachother for all eternity. Plus the universe actually DOES reincarnate. When energy is used it is converted into unusable heat energy. This heat energy escapes into the universe. Eventually when all the energy of the entire universe is use and all mass has been converted into heat energy it will condense and form a super heavy form of energy that will explode... the big bang. We could be living in the 1,000,000th reincarnation of this universe.


well big bang cant explain how can a living creature can be created out of nowhere so I dont consider it as a choice.I believe in heaven and hell.and you have a point in there.I finished "full moon wo sagashite" manga and thinking about those recently.it seems very comliplicated.when you die you will look like at the age when you are at your peak, this is what I infer from prophet Muhammed's words.but about the ones you love I dont think anybody can answer it.we will have to wait untill to the afterlife for the answer.

cap14
May 31, 2006, 10:44 AM
Heaven just has flaws . . . Or what if you have a child who dies young. When you die what form do you take in heaven, a child's, what you looked like when you died?

A fair enough point - I agree that a lot of religions have flaws to some degree or another. No doubt it could be argued that the flaws are of our own making rather then an actual flaw of the religion itself. After all, the extent of our knowledge of a given religion comes from religious texts, which were written by mortal and therefore fallible hands.

I also think your perspectives are mixed up. Say you do have a child – they die. You die. You go to Heaven. When you meet up in Heaven, why then must you be constrained by physical form, in a purely spiritual existence?

There are also countless arguments that can be made against reincarnation as a viable truth. Take the number of people alive today: exponentially greater then were alive in, say, the 1500’s.
So where were all the souls alive today but not in the 1500’s? Of course, there are theory’s that suggest man can be reincarnated as an animal, if they lived a bad life for example, somewhat alleviating the numbers . . . but that in itself would make a profound statement about the nature of society. If there are more humans alive now, then that must mean we, as people, are morally better then we were back then. Maybe it’s true, but … the World Wars disagree.
Also the question about what constitutes a viable reincarnated form is raised: are cows and dogs viable? Maybe! But where do you draw the line? Does a yeast cell count? What about viral agents? If not, then what exactly are these things? Because the omissions make a bold statement about what it is to be alive.
I also think your statement about the big bang is based upon assumptions, not proofs. There’s currently no irrefutable evidence suggesting that the mass density of the universe is great enough to cause a re-collapse of the universe. Although from the sounds of things you might be talking about phase-transitions in the vacuum energy of space – are you?

Looking forward to all reply's :smile-big Philosophy is fun, even though I can never grasp it.
Christophele's.

glasskatana
May 31, 2006, 09:50 PM
A fair enough point - I agree that a lot of religions have flaws to some degree or another. No doubt it could be argued that the flaws are of our own making rather then an actual flaw of the religion itself. After all, the extent of our knowledge of a given religion comes from religious texts, which were written by mortal and therefore fallible hands.

I also think your perspectives are mixed up. Say you do have a child – they die. You die. You go to Heaven. When you meet up in Heaven, why then must you be constrained by physical form, in a purely spiritual existence?

There are also countless arguments that can be made against reincarnation as a viable truth. Take the number of people alive today: exponentially greater then were alive in, say, the 1500’s.
So where were all the souls alive today but not in the 1500’s? Of course, there are theory’s that suggest man can be reincarnated as an animal, if they lived a bad life for example, somewhat alleviating the numbers . . . but that in itself would make a profound statement about the nature of society. If there are more humans alive now, then that must mean we, as people, are morally better then we were back then. Maybe it’s true, but … the World Wars disagree.
Also the question about what constitutes a viable reincarnated form is raised: are cows and dogs viable? Maybe! But where do you draw the line? Does a yeast cell count? What about viral agents? If not, then what exactly are these things? Because the omissions make a bold statement about what it is to be alive.
I also think your statement about the big bang is based upon assumptions, not proofs. There’s currently no irrefutable evidence suggesting that the mass density of the universe is great enough to cause a re-collapse of the universe. Although from the sounds of things you might be talking about phase-transitions in the vacuum energy of space – are you?

Looking forward to all reply's :smile-big Philosophy is fun, even though I can never grasp it.
Christophele's.

Good and evil are merely perceptions put up by the mind to add order to an otherwise supposedly chaotic society. Unless you live in the world of Disney, most people that are considered villains, (hitler for example) did not believe thmselves villains. Who judges what is good and what is evil. The collective conscious and subconscious. As for reincarnatoin, why must you be reincarnated at once. Why must you be reincarnated in accordance to what you did in life. A man who steals is 'bad'. A man who steals a medicine to save his dying child is seen very differently. Reincarnation has it's flaws like all things. I find, and I have not been brought uo as a buddhist or under hinduism, that reincarnation has less flaws. Of course there's always the more logical alternative of we rot in the ground. Look closely at religious texts. The common 'thou shalt not kill' is often disregarded. Replaced by 'thou shalt not murder'. Murder and killing are two very different things. Murder is evil. Killing can be good or evil. The crusades were led by the pope(s) of the times. At the moment they were doing the work of god. In today's times, they would be viewed as evil. Funny how religion changes with society. I am thouroghly enjoying this.


well big bang cant explain how can a living creature can be created out of nowhere so I dont consider it as a choice.I believe in heaven and hell.and you have a point in there.I finished "full moon wo sagashite" manga and thinking about those recently.it seems very comliplicated.

Actually it can. Big bang started it all. After a couple... maybe trillion years, who knows, the Primordial soup happens (spelling?). It has been proven possible to run electricity through certain elements and end up forming a cell. It would take millions, maybe even billion of years however to form a functioning living cell. Not just it's components.
Again, I get a lot of enjoyment out of discussions like these. Keep 'em coming.

cap14
June 01, 2006, 10:36 AM
As for reincarnation, why must you be reincarnated at once? Why must you be reincarnated in accordance to what you did in life?

Again, another fair point. Why must we be reincarnated at once? My point was made from my own – limited – understanding of reincarnation as a process whereby the soul is reborn in a new form. I envisaged it as a sort of “conservation of soul number” law! But if the souls aren’t necessarily alive at the same time it begs the question where are they when they aren’t in human form? Again, the sheer number of people alive today would suggest that there are some amongst us who are in their first incarnation’s rather then reincarnation – why are they only now entering the cycle and where have they kept their lazy-ass souls all this time (prob. playing a kind of “spiritual WoW” somewhere). This would also suggest a process of soul creation rather then an infinite cycle of birth and rebirth. I don’t know … perhaps we need the input of someone who strongly believes in these things.


Good and evil are merely perceptions put up by the mind to add order to an otherwise supposedly chaotic society.

Agreed: good and evil are partly concepts invented by society. I also think “good” and “evil” might also represent an innate evolutionary response to safeguard our existence: we form a society due to similarities between us -- be it due to our spatial locations or mental responses to the questions we can’t explain [answer: invention of religion and god] – those things that differ from us are bad and evil; those similar are good. This might classically be viewed as the trade-off between drive of a genome to mutate (to otherwise explore the fitness landscape) versus the risk of said mutation. So … in summary I think maybe good and evil are social constructs influenced by an evolutionary drive to protect the population over the individual. Doh … am starting to ramble.


The crusades were led by the pope(s) of the times. At the moment they were doing the work of god. In today's times, they would be viewed as evil. Funny how religion changes with society.

Well maybe, but if you spoke to someone about the crusades today they would more likely then not respond with a certain detachment (not the fervours response one might expect if the act was considered evil), “Oh, the crusades, yeah, I think I know something about them.” Whereas if you spoke to the same person about, say, Al qaeda terrorists (which can be envisaged as a sub-religion localised crusade) the response would be somewhat different (and spirited). So not only do we get evil differing with society, we also get it diluting with time. I wonder if people will look back in a hundred years and flippantly say, “Hitler? Oh, wasn’t he something to do with a war at some point.”
On the subject of Crusades has anyone read about the “Children’s Crusades”? Now that’s scary.

Hmm … despite nearly a page of rambling, I don’t think I’ve actually raised any new points. Suppose I could say something on the nature of perception but I really have to do some work. Oh, damn ... forgot to try and debunk the emergence of life as a chance occurance. Oh well, next time (I might even throw in some numbers :p). Ciao for now.

Rampages
June 03, 2006, 08:30 PM
Well maybe, but if you spoke to someone about the crusades today they would more likely then not respond with a certain detachment (not the fervours response one might expect if the act was considered evil), “Oh, the crusades, yeah, I think I know something about them.” Whereas if you spoke to the same person about, say, Al qaeda terrorists (which can be envisaged as a sub-religion localised crusade) the response would be somewhat different (and spirited). So not only do we get evil differing with society, we also get it diluting with time. I wonder if people will look back in a hundred years and flippantly say, “Hitler? Oh, wasn’t he something to do with a war at some point.”


Well a lot of us are indifferent to the things that didn't have an effect on our lives or those that we know, so I guess that's understandable. I'm sure in a century, people will say that Hitler wasn't that bad...and its probably normal.

To return to a previous topic, I don't think there is either heaven or hell. It seems to me that it is just way too easy to be sent to hell or heaven because of how you lived your life. We might be giving too much importance to our lives. We will live and die, be born and die some more, but the universe won't be affected in the least imo.

juUnior
January 02, 2007, 11:43 AM
I don;t like to philosophy, but i do belive in one sentence which i think is somewhat true: Nothing is impossible. If you don't know how to ride motorcycle, than learn that. Thats my way of life. I know that some things never change, but on uspects with "can i do it if i learn that" i think its true ^^