Philosophical Debate Thread - What is the meaning of everything?
205 replies, posted
Their really isn't a meaning or significane about anything, cosmically, every single thing is an accumlation of atoms, and everything eventually breaks downs and simply forms into some other thing in the universe. But that doesn't mean people should just off themselves or make a fucked up society just because of that, unless people are just fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Asphyxia;27094087]
Music is a phenomenon to me, we discovered music some thousands of years ago and have developed it very intensely. We've come up with names for certain notes, A B C D E F G, etc. Notes comply with each other in a way very pleasing to our ear, yet why is that? Why is it that notes C and G sound heavenly together? We didn't invent music, only discovered it.
[/QUOTE]
C and G are "heavenly" because their frequencies are in a 2:3 ratio.
Do some research next time.
On a random note, this thread makes me think of that one Cal Sagan quote about how we are the universe admiring itself.
[QUOTE=Binsky;27112425]On a random note, this thread makes me think of that one Cal Sagan quote about how we are the universe admiring itself.[/QUOTE]
"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."
Fuck man, THAT is true depth. It's so beautiful.
Seriously man. I need to watch that again. It's free on hulu i'm p sure
[QUOTE=Binsky;27112466]Seriously man. I need to watch that again. It's free on hulu i'm p sure[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/media]
Quote's in here
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[i]the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together[/i]
i'm tearing up :'|
Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are my gods
"Our obligation to survive and flourish
Is owed not just to ourselves
But also to that cosmos
Ancient and vast, from which we spring."
There is no meaning.
I always said that while things DO have a meaning, it's irrelevant to us. It's more of a miscellaneous little thing to know than something world changing. You know the meaning of life, whoopedy-do. Does it solve any problem? Doubt it.
So instead of wasting brainpower on such trivial things, we should get working on fixing the world.
[QUOTE=Asphyxia;27111947]Like I said in an earlier post, this isn't 100% philosophy, these questions I ask deal deal with philosophy, science, physics, etc. I'm not going to limit my thinking by only focusing on certain ideas.[/QUOTE]
You should if every other kind of thinking is wrong. Im going to say that limiting my thinking to only science isnt a bad thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27113205]You should if every other kind of thinking is wrong. Im going to say that limiting my thinking to only science isnt a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Philosophy picks up where science leaves off. While we may be able to conclude through the usage of science that we are merely the product of atoms colliding, that purely scientific explanation does not give us humans enough reason and satisfaction to simply conclude that discussion there. Philosophy is a daily part of our lives, from ethical dilemmas to giving us emotional and intellectual pleasure, it is a necessity. One of the most popular fields of science today, dealing with genetics and biological engineering, is plagued by different ethical issues that scientists must tackle each day. How do they do it? They apply basic and complex ethical systems in order to reach a conclusion. Yet again, we see philosophy working its way when we examine the Middle Eastern society that is being torn apart by extremists and on the other fence the attempts by Western Countries to apply their individual ideologies (Philosophy) to the respective regions. Science does not have the answer for everything, and as such philosophy and other ways of thinking must be brought in to fill in the pieces (Of course, these pieces are always subjective and they present the beauty of an ever changing and dynamic field of thought)
And no, every other kind of thinking is not wrong. Where did you get that idea from, I don't know.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113419]Science does not have the answer for everything, and as such philosophy and other ways of thinking must be brought in to fill in the pieces [/QUOTE]
apffffft
call me when philosophy actually gives us an answer to something
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
Philosophy's real good at asking questions but not so good at giving actual answers
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113419]Philosophy picks up where science leaves off. While we may be able to conclude through the usage of science that we are merely the product of atoms colliding, that purely scientific explanation does not give us humans enough reason and satisfaction to simply conclude that discussion there. Philosophy is a daily part of our lives, from ethical dilemmas to giving us emotional and intellectual pleasure, it is a necessity. One of the most popular fields of science today, dealing with genetics and biological engineering, is plagued by different ethical issues that scientists must tackle each day. How do they do it? They apply basic and complex ethical systems in order to reach a conclusion. Yet again, we see philosophy working its way when we examine the Middle Eastern society that is being torn apart by extremists and on the other fence the attempts by Western Countries to apply their individual ideologies (Philosophy) to the respective regions. Science does not have the answer for everything, and as such philosophy and other ways of thinking must be brought in to fill in the pieces (Of course, these pieces are always subjective and they present the beauty of an ever changing and dynamic field of thought)
And no, every other kind of thinking is not wrong. Where did you get that idea from, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
all those questions can be answered by science (yes even the moral ones) and while science doesnt have the answer to everything it gives you the tool in order to answer any question as best as possible and comes up with more answers then anything else.
there is no question that cant be answered by science that can be answered by something else correctly.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113419]And no, every other kind of thinking is not wrong. Where did you get that idea from, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
either use information to base your choices or guess. which one do you like better?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;27113467]apffffft
call me when philosophy actually gives us an answer to something
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
Philosophy's real good at asking questions but not so good at giving actual answers[/QUOTE]
As I said before, you only need to look at a subset of Philosophy -Ethics- to get a clear answer to how philosophy is used within our society in a practical way. Philosophy is not simply navel gazing and wondering about things, it is a tool by which we can deal with extremely complicated dillemas within our lives without simply resorting to our natural instincts.
Do you believe that society and all of its rules, laws, and behaviors arose without the usage of philosophical tools? No, all of those things have been manipulated and changed over time by different individuals using philosophical insight to mold our society to fit different purposes.
What is life, But the mortal dream?
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113604]As I said before, you only need to look at the subset of Philosophy -Ethics- to get a clear answer to how philosophy is used within our society in a practical way. Philosophy is not simply navel gazing and wondering about things, it is a tool by which we can deal with extremely complicated dillemas within our lives without simply resorting to our natural instincts.
Do you believe that society and all of its rules, laws, and behaviors arose without the usage of philosophical tools? No, all of those things have been manipulated and changed over time by different individuals using philosophical insight to mold our society to fit different purposes.[/QUOTE]
This is true and I respect this but I have a stomach ache and I kind of need to sleep so seeya
A fossil debate thread?
[img]http://mapleclass.com/files/attach/images/68/749/012/fossil_fish.jpg[/img]
I like these, fuck your T-Rex.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113604]As I said before, you only need to look at a subset of Philosophy -Ethics- to get a clear answer to how philosophy is used within our society in a practical way. Philosophy is not simply navel gazing and wondering about things, it is a tool by which we can deal with extremely complicated dillemas within our lives without simply resorting to our natural instincts.
Do you believe that society and all of its rules, laws, and behaviors arose without the usage of philosophical tools? No, all of those things have been manipulated and changed over time by different individuals using philosophical insight to mold our society to fit different purposes.[/QUOTE]
You know you can use logic in order to base laws on.
All you have to do is ask what a laws are for and use logic in order to find the best way accomplish the goal that the law is trying to do.
THE ANSWER IS 42.
no more debate i just gave u the answer its 42!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27113527]all those questions can be answered by science (yes even the moral ones) and while science doesnt have the answer to everything it gives you the tool in order to answer any question as best as possible and comes up with more answers then anything else.
there is no question that cant be answered by science that can be answered by something else correctly.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
either use information to base your choices or guess. which one do you like better?[/QUOTE]
No, all those questions cannot be answered by science. None of them can. If you can give me a way by which science can answer all moral questions, then by all means go ahead.
But here is the thing, you can't. If we use science in this way, we indeed are not using science at all. Why? Because morality cannot be solved by an equation. If we look at things from a biological perspective, we can conclude that nature does not have any moral views and it all simply boils down to atoms colliding. Maybe in an alternate reality where we were all robots science may be used in exclusivity, but we are currently within this universe and we must do our best to work it out without clinging to some fantasy concepts of the impossible uses of science.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27113745]You know you can use logic in order to base laws on.
All you have to do is ask what a laws are for and use logic in order to find the best way accomplish the goal that the law is trying to do.[/QUOTE]
Logic=/Science
Logic is philosophy.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113871]No, all those questions cannot be answered by science. None of them can. If you can give me a way by which science can answer all moral questions, then by all means go ahead.
But here is the thing, you can't. If we use science in this way, we indeed are not using science at all. Why? Because morality cannot be solved by an equation. If we look at things from a biological perspective, we can conclude that nature does not have any moral views and it all simply boils down to atoms colliding. Maybe in an alternate reality where we were all robots science may be used in exclusivity, but we are currently within this universe and we must do our best to work it out without clinging to some fantasy concepts of the impossible uses of science.[/QUOTE]
there are people who disagree with you on this subject
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality[/url]
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;27113929]there are people who disagree with you on this subject
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality[/url]
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Well until those type of views are established and approved upon by the majority of scientists and academic individuals, we have to stick with what we currently have in our society. That is, the mixture of both philosophy and science.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113962]Well until those type of views are established and approved upon by the majority of scientists and academic individuals, we have to stick with what we currently have in our society. That is, the mixture of both philosophy and science.[/QUOTE]
seems fair enough
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113871]No, all those questions cannot be answered by science.
[/QUOTE]
give me a question that cant be answered then.
[quote]Logic=/Science
Logic is philosophy.[/QUOTE]
No its not logic a correct way at looking at things and is science.
Thats how you can have logical fallacies.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27113962]Well until those type of views are established and approved upon by the majority of scientists and academic individuals, we have to stick with what we currently have in our society. That is, the mixture of both philosophy and science.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what a theory means?
Its not called a theory because its a guess.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27115034]give me a question that cant be answered then.
No its not logic a correct way at looking at things and is science.
Thats how you can have logical fallacies.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
Do you know what a theory means?
Its not called a theory because its a guess.[/QUOTE]
Ethical Dillema: "A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?" There are several ethical systems one could use to solve this issue, and it is regarded to be a testing ground of different ideological views. I don't doubt that its been tackled on by some of these "philosophy of science" intellectuals, but I haven't seen any of that in my studies, personal readings, or research.
The only way logic can be related to science is through the usage of mathematics, but the roots of logic exists within philosophical quandaries and has several different subfields and systems:
"Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language."- Stanford Encyclopedia
That could be a theory, depending on how you look at it. A scientific classification would side more with the label of hypothesis, due to the lack of enough testing that has lead to a majority of scientists to agree with it. In the field of non-technicality, it is indeed an untested view=theory. Your point?
As such, I side more with my view due to its more strongly supported views and supports. Over time, that may very well change and those views may begin to gain ground, but until that time arrives I will stick to the views I mentioned.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27115280]"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.
The only way logic can be related to nature is through the usage of mathematics, but the roots of logic exists within philosophical quandaries and has several different subfields and systems:
[/QUOTE] the one with only one person. morals are based on environment, because different people have different morals doesnt mean they are out side of science. it only means that people have different morals just like there are different beliefs even though there is a scientific true belief. This also depends on what your objective is and that can be scientifically shown a best course.
[quote]"Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language."- Stanford Encyclopedia[/quote]
Loigic is using your available data in order to make the best choice which can be right or wrong. that is science.
[quote]That could be a theory, depending on how you look at it. A scientific classification would side more with the label of hypothesis, due to the lack of enough testing that has lead to a majority of scientists to agree with it. In the field of non-technicality, it is indeed an untested view.
[/quote]
techicaly it doesnt have to be tested, saying it cant be scientific is also a hypothesis and since everything else we know of can be scientifically understood its not a leap of faith to think this can too.
also you still didnt give me a question that I cant answer scientifically
[U]"the one with only one person."[/U]
How did you get to that? Through science? What was your process? What natural laws did you use? How did you come upon that answer through the exclusive use of science? What is your explanation and how can you test that effectively so that we can establish a hypothesis connected to this situation?
[U]
"morals are based on environment, because different people have different morals doesnt mean they are out side of science"[/U]
What do you think morals are? What do you mean they are "based on environment"? What are you talking about when you say outside of science? How can that be? You mean not affected by science? Obviously we are affected by science, that can be easily explained by basic biological and physical principles (That is, if we assert that physicality is correct; which is not objective at all)
[U]
"it only means that people have different morals just like there are different beliefs even though there is a scientific true belief"[/U]
People have different morals? Well duh, people have different ethical systems and not one person thinks alike as another. What is this "scientific true belief"?
[U]
"This also depends on what your objective is and that can be scientifically shown a best course."[/U]
What are you trying to say? That science can show us the clear course to an objective? Bullshit words upon bullshit words.
[U]"Loigic is using your available data in order to make the best choice which can be right or wrong. that is science."[/U]
"Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world"-Merriam Webster Def. No, your definition is incorrect. You may use available data, but you also use tools and ideologies and different systems of thought and languages to arrive to a conclusion. But since there is a constant shift in environments, people, thoughts, and behaviors it is impossible to test.
[U]"techicaly it doesnt have to be tested"[/U]
If we are speaking in scientific terms, than a theory must be tested in order to be accepted as something that is concrete. A hypothesis may have some data to back it up, but it does not have the range of data and experiments that is required to be accepted as a theory.
[U]"saying it cant be scientific is also a hypothesis and since everything else we know of can be scientifically understood its not a leap of faith to think this can too."[/U]
Everything can be scientifically understood? Maybe, maybe not. But as I said before, lets focus on what we know now and what is established before we jump off in future possibilities and etc.
[U]"also you still didnt give me a question that I cant answer scientifically "[/U]
I did, it was the ethical dillema which you gave me an answer too that you did not answer scientifically. Maybe you didn't understand that you were supposed to answer it scientifically... can you?
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27115815][U]"the one with only one person."[/U]
I did, it was the ethical dillema which you gave me an answer too that you did not answer scientifically. Maybe you didn't understand that you were supposed to answer it scientifically... can you?[/QUOTE]
I did. If my objective is to have the most sentient beings survive and I only had 2 choices then by basic math I did the right thing.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27115815]
Everything can be scientifically understood? Maybe, maybe not. But as I said before, lets focus on what we know now and what is established before we jump off in future possibilities and etc.
[/QUOTE]
We know through tests that science can answer questions.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;27115815][U]"the one with only one person."[/U]
How did you get to that? Through science? What was your process? What natural laws did you use? How did you come upon that answer through the exclusive use of science? What is your explanation and how can you test that effectively so that we can establish a hypothesis connected to this situation?
[/QUOTE]
Because my goal was to have the most sentient being survive.
but really you should just watch this.
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html[/url]