The General Discussion forum seems to in a pensive sort of state currently, I can't judge too well how well people will accept this considering the average age of facepunch is less than 16, so I'm not sure.
[b]First and Foremost[/b]
Like a good psychoanalysis, your ideal contemplating position should be somewhere mystical and dramatic, with a distinct vibe of unwelcomeness, to prevent intrusion by callous people
[img]http://www.usyd.edu.au/images/content/cws/news/newsevents/articles/2008/jan/FreudWeb.jpg[/img]
[i]See my good friend and drinking buddy Sigmund[/i]
Other ideal places are isolated mountaintop huts
[img]http://www.kreisels.com/tibet94/images/yurt.jpg[/img]
[i]My mate dave lives here, I've seen him down a pint of introspection in 8 seconds[/i]
Or if you like a more gothic feel to it, go and think mildy dangerous things in a church
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EBq9covCU9o/RjCyaDb4G3I/AAAAAAAABAY/TK8g3iHBots/s400/YIMG_0903.JPG[/img]
[i]Please don't tell me it's Romanesque not gothic[/i]
[b]Right, we have a place, now we need a time[/b]
There are a lot of great times during which you should philosophise. I find thinking of them is easier sitting down on the bog, wait, there's one right there! They're everywhere. While drunk or high, going for a dramatic walk, going for a not very dramatic walk through the country on a cold winters morning, ad infinatum. what's much more important is when you [i]shouldn't[/i] be thinking about why people suffer so much in life.
[b]Disagreeable Circumstances[/b]
Any action film scenario ever:
[img]http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/snakes-on-a-plane.jpg[/img]
During extreme sports
[img]http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/photopost/data/520/Motorbike_Jump.jpg[/img]
...and other such cases, just use your judgement, you're a clever lot... on second thoughts, I ought to make a kind of compendium of things like this... I wonder what colour it should be... ah, yes, I digress.
[b]Ok, I'm sitting in my Hut / Chair / Monastery / Isolated Cave, I'm not currently on fire or equivalent, what do I think about?[/b]
Good question, it's one that needs some thought. Right, this is where I stop dicking around with the puns and get down to the meat of the matter. Through my extensive thinking, I conclude that good philosophy is that where you reach a conclusion, and / or think new, unique thoughts. don't go into thinking like casting bait into a pond, go in with a question, come out with an answer, or better yet, a set of possible answers.
So, a test question, and to a degree, something we can all think about, it'll do no harm to do so: "What, without providing an example, is evil"
Try thinking about that, you'll find an answer you're happy with harder to grasp than you think.
[b]Well I thought about your shitty question, it was pretty easy. I'm so good at this I should think about how the universe came about or something[/b]
Woah there, you might not want to be too eager about your thinking, try and stick with tangible problems, preferably those connected to you or your life. Anyway, too much hard thinking can cause Helvetica:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY7XH2ulTEU[/media]
Well there's my thinking, if anyone cares, I'll ask some more questions.
While I at it, when I went to paris with a mate, up on Montmartre, the big hill, wndering through an alleyway, we spot a bit of graffiti. Normally so what, but the subject matter was curious, so kudos to whoever want to translate it, it's rather insightful:
[img]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2298/awesomegrafitti.jpg[/img]
The word my mate is obscuring is morte.
Try not to let your beard grow too long, stroking it is high conducive to good thought, but too long and tripping can occur
I am currently thinking about what to think about.
I'm thinking about the fact that you're thinking about what to think about due to my suggestion to go and think about what to think about, and I think that to think is just great.
I'm thinking about whether I should make suggestions of simplification.
Evil is any action that is committed with intent to harm, badly inconvenience or otherwise impede another living thing.
Or you could say that Evil is the result of weak willpower coupled with weakness of character.
[editline]05:36PM[/editline]
Interesting graffiti. "Like everyone, I have roots. But I'm a dead leaf."
Maybe the artist is talking about the fact that a person's background does not play a major role in the person he or she will become.
Maybe the artist is expressing frustration at not being able to live up to the standards set by his/her forebearers, or expressing his/her desire to live free from being defined by his/her ethnic roots.
Actually it says: "I [b]help[/b] roots", not have, making the meaning quite different.
Ah, the problem of Evil. Can you really define it without analogy? Does it apply to nature, or just human beings? Is evil a human characteristic, or does it apply to everything universally? Is it something we grow into, or something we grow out of? Does Evil have a form, or is it simply the lack of Goodness? What should be classed as 'evil' instead of simply 'immoral'? Is evil the result of the Original Sin? Is evil proof of God's nonexistence? If God exists and is good, why does he allow evil into the world? Is it immutable? Can it ever be defined correctly? Is it a relative term, or an absolute?
I'm not gonna answer any of those, I'm just recollecting all the questions I could remember various philosophers have asked, relating to evil.
I don't believe in life, love, personal property, personal space, or really any one form of anything
To me, it's nothing but atoms, all just floating around, some attracted to each other, some moving passed one another, some reacting with each other in some way causing us to do the things we do. There is no choice, everything you do is inevitable, ever since the big bang. No matter what you say, you've always existed and always will. Just before, you were in a different form.
This is also the basis for my theory of reincarnation.
eventually, you will turn to dust. Eventually, your atoms will form with other atoms to make a new life.
so in a sense, there is no philosophy, there is no thought, and nothing exists, if you believe in the atomic level of thinking.
Can objectivity only exist within an objective framework? Can we objectively derive meaning from anything outside this framework without first making a larger frame? hmm
Edit: Agree'd with above ^ . We Sir are reductionist realists it seems.
EAT MY WATERY GREEN SHIT
THAT IS MY Philosophy
I like to stroke my moustache while pondering
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;19597979]*atoms*
so in a sense, there is no philosophy, there is no thought, and nothing exists, if you believe in the atomic level of thinking.[/QUOTE]
What if I proposed that every atom had a thought process, and the movement of atoms wasn't purely random but the result of groups of atoms working together to form the complex structures of reality? How are we to know that atoms don't follow some sort of thought process, especially when there's so much left undiscovered at the subatomic level? There's no way of discovering the true nature of the atom with our current technology - or comprehending it in our current physical, human forms.
[QUOTE=Jimjim32;19596895]Actually it says: "I [b]help[/b] roots", not have, making the meaning quite different.[/QUOTE]
No, It's not j'aides. It's J'ai des.
"I have the"
You know, that makes more sense, I always read it as J'aides, which rather changes the meaning.
Most philosophy is only philosophy because it consists of questions or ideas that can't come to a 100% sure, defined, solution. In fact I would say that an easily accessible solution doesn't make for 'good philosophy' but rather pointless philosophy. Inserting a flame, spark, or even disagreement into the mind of whomever is involved/reads/partakes in ones philosophy is what really sustains 'good philosophy'. You need not waste time debating/thinking about things that are known, but focus on the unknown, because in the unknown and the unproven lies progression to be had.
On the notion of evil
To describe something is to give relational examples to help another gain an understanding/concept of what it is they don't understand by focusing on what they do understand. So to describe evil without examples is the equivalent of trying to describe colors to a blind man.
[editline]12:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jimjim32;19605060]You know, that makes more sense, I always read it as J'aides, which rather changes the meaning.[/QUOTE]
Have makes much more sense. Assuming everyone helps roots would negate the possibility of dead leaves.
dude at this point i dont give a shit anymore
[QUOTE=Soulbrother;19605208]Most philosophy is only philosophy because it consists of questions or ideas that can't come to a 100% sure, defined, solution. In fact I would say that an easily accessible solution doesn't make for 'good philosophy' but rather pointless philosophy. Inserting a flame, spark, or even disagreement into the mind of whomever is involved/reads/partakes in ones philosophy is what really sustains 'good philosophy'. You need not waste time debating/thinking about things that are known, but focus on the unknown, because in the unknown and the unproven lies progression to be had.
On the notion of evil
To describe something is to give relational examples to help another gain an understanding/concept of what it is they don't understand by focusing on what they do understand. So to describe evil without examples is the equivalent of trying to describe colors to a blind man.
[editline]12:08AM[/editline]
Have makes much more sense. Assuming everyone helps roots would negate the possibility of dead leaves.[/QUOTE]
Very philosophical, but I think going to think about something without an objective won't get you anywhere. As with all thoughts, it must begin with: "I wonder why/what..."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.