PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy



Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 01:15 AM
do you live by any form of philosophy? I'm really interested to hear philosophical concepts people have picked up through books, or various forms of experience.

most of my philosophy comes out of the book Way of The Peaceful Warrior . . . which is essentially:

if you're not happy now, you will never be happy.
there is no past or future, there is only now.


there are several other concepts, but I seem to have forgot.

please share your insight ;).

-grubby
October 16th, 2007, 01:41 AM
does "treat people how you want to be treated" count?

yabbadabbadont
October 16th, 2007, 01:48 AM
does "treat people how you want to be treated" count?

How does that work for a masochist? :twisted:

Edit: forgot an on-topic comment: My credo is, "Leave me alone and I'll do the same for you." :)

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 01:52 AM
Now taking a pool on the number of tough-as-nails "hardcore nihilists" that'll pop up! :popcorn:

Most of my personal philosophy comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys and the works of R. A. Wilson.

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 02:05 AM
Having a philosophy is one thing, but it's realy not absolute. It changes & evolves when your environment chenges. Or els you will not servive.


if you're not happy now, you will never be happy. ... I say true
there is no past or future, there is only now.... true
treat people how you want to be treated ... true to.

A great thing about the human mind is that it is capble to produce the 'wright' philosophy to servive. Serviving in the office or the jungle!

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
A great thing about the human mind is that it is capble to produce the 'wright' philosophy to servive.

You mean your philosophy is to go to Kitty Hawk and invent the airplane?

BOZG
October 16th, 2007, 02:11 AM
Dialectical Materialism :cool:

yabbadabbadont
October 16th, 2007, 02:11 AM
You mean your philosophy is to go to Kitty Hawk and invent the airplane?

Cut him some slack. He's probably Dutch, given his location. I doubt that I would be able to make anything close to a passable post in Dutch. ;)

ErusGuleilmus
October 16th, 2007, 02:13 AM
I cant say that I live under any particular credo, but I am pretty into Egoism.

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 02:14 AM
Cut him some slack. He's probably Dutch, given his location. I doubt that I would be able to make anything close to a passable post in Dutch. ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by it. I would have made the same gag no matter what anyone's native language.

BOZG
October 16th, 2007, 02:20 AM
Sorry, I didn't mean anything by it. I would have made the same gag no matter what anyone's native language.

And it was a good gag too.

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 02:44 AM
well, such a philosophy that you live by thus far, examples would be appreciated as I don't really have the money or time to go out and read every book that is referenced in this thread ;).

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 02:47 AM
You mean your philosophy is to go to Kitty Hawk and invent the airplane?

LOL

Well, my english is realy poor! I know... What I ment was evolution! We are becouse we think (Decartes).

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 02:53 AM
"I think therefore I am." ?

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 02:56 AM
"I think therefore I am." ?

yes

Cogito, ergo sum

HermanAB
October 16th, 2007, 03:20 AM
Interesting that you quote Descarte. He certainly wrote that, but since 'cogito ergo sum' is a Latin quote, I would guess that it is much older. Shakespeare also wrote 'I think therefore I am' into Hamlet.

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 03:23 AM
it could have been both of them. they both lived in the same time, I assume that René Descartes made it up though, as he is the one who has all the credit on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)

p_quarles
October 16th, 2007, 03:25 AM
Interesting that you quote Descarte. He certainly wrote that, but since 'cogito ergo sum' is a Latin quote, I would guess that it is much older. Shakespeare also wrote 'I think therefore I am' into Hamlet.
It was definitely Descartes. Latin was the international language of Europe in his day, so all educated people were fluent, and most scholarly works were written in Latin. </fun facts>

Ireclan
October 16th, 2007, 03:25 AM
I don't live by any philosophy. To me, philosophies are a pretty useless invention, as there are always exceptions to any of them.

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 03:29 AM
I don't live by any philosophy. To me, philosophies are a pretty useless invention, as there are always exceptions to any of them.

That is a philosophy to :lolflag:

euler_fan
October 16th, 2007, 03:30 AM
I'm fairly eclectic but mostly a Jamesian Pragmatist, but also very skeptical of most philosophy.

This generally falls out with me that (1) we have to pick what kind of world we want to live in and (2) we have to act in such a way as we promote the attainment of that world and the prevention of lesser ones. Kind of like the way we as a community pick how we want these forums to be and enforce it.

Things I like:
1) The ability of people to speak their minds and discuss ideas, even if they are far fetched/controversial.
2) We are free to make our own choices (within reason, but as broadly as possible)
3) Polite is generally a good thing. Although I side with Lewis Black on profanities :)
4) a bunch of other stuff . . .

EDIT: It is my belief that a reasonable world should be one we can all agree is a decent place to live, work, and raise our families.

areteichi
October 16th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Interesting that you quote Descarte. He certainly wrote that, but since 'cogito ergo sum' is a Latin quote, I would guess that it is much older. Shakespeare also wrote 'I think therefore I am' into Hamlet.

Latin was still thriving in the Baroque period so Descartes was fluent in Latin and used it not only to express the phrase, but also wrote his books in Latin. And he is the one who came up with the phrase cogito ergo sum.

Categorical Imperative is pretty interesting.
Also phenomenology is what I'm trying to learn more about.

I don't have a particular "philosophy" that I live by, for what I live by is constantly in flux (from Heraclitus).

Mr. Picklesworth
October 16th, 2007, 03:46 AM
An old man, his head twisted backwards, stares into the night sky.

"What are you looking at? The sky is empty tonight!" inquires an impatient boy.

This old man has gazed at stars for hours. He has embraced them, and so to him they have revealed themselves. His eyes, stretched open with curiosity, absorb the light from everything, just as it was seen centuries ago.

eljoeb
October 16th, 2007, 03:48 AM
My give a damn is busted. That's the closest i got.

edd07
October 16th, 2007, 04:13 AM
We are becouse we think (Decartes).
Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I believe you're misinterpreting Descartes. I was taught that Cogito ergo sum was about our thinking being the only proof of our existence (I think, so that must mean I exist.). Not that it is the cause of our existence

Mr. Picklesworth
October 16th, 2007, 04:46 AM
In terms of existing, my thought there is that any being can claim self-awareness, and there is no way whatsoever to prove it. For all I know, I am the only thing in the world that is; that sees a leaf falling and doesn't just see "a leaf", but a picture. To see the world -- not just react to it, but to see it -- is completely unnecessary, but something that I would not give up for the world. It is an unexplainable, invisible aspect of being, and one thing that everyone seems to accept. How is it that we see not just objects, but shapes and colours which we have no reason to actually experience? How is it that, even without free will as some science is so prominently claiming we lack, we feel and believe in our complete personal free will? If we were simply tranquil gears in a machine, why would we feel, or experience, anything?
Free will and actually being aware of life in the way I have tried to describe is a tough nut to crack, though. Logically, it is an indetectable property, and the assumption that other beings do or do not have this ability is a matter of faith.

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 05:18 AM
yeah yeah, that's a concept that can't be proven . . . an endless debate. we're on philosophy here, nhilistis and/or people who 'think' they don't embrace some sort of philosophy can kindly stay out.

a story:

A mother brings her child to Ghandi;
"Ghandi, tell my son to not eat sugar."

"Come back in two weeks"

the mother comes back with her son;

Ghandi: "Don't eat sugar!"

mother:"Why couldn't you tell him that two weeks ago?"

Ghandi: "Two weeks ago, I was eating sugar."

edd07
October 16th, 2007, 05:20 AM
I think we have no free will. We are, as another forum member put it: 'meat robots'. This belief is not very popular, I think, because a lot of people take the concept of choice as a universal truth. I believe nothing is chosen in the Universe...it just unfolds, the only way it could unfold. If choice doesn't exist in the Universe, why is not having free will bad? It's only natural.

The problem arises when you try to say whether a person is responsible for his/her actions. According to this, they aren't, because they couldn't have acted any other way. On the other hand, their subjective experience says they did have a choice...so they are responsible.

I know, I know...I'm saying stuff and debunking it in the same post...so much for a conclusion. But this is what philosophy is all about to me :lolflag:

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 05:21 AM
Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I believe you're misinterpreting Descartes. I was taught that Cogito ergo sum was about our thinking being the only proof of our existence (I think, so that must mean I exist.). Not that it is the cause of our existence

Your right. that is what Decartes ment by that. But I tend to use it here to make a point in this thread. When thinking proves your existence, therefor eather conscious or not, everyone has a philosophy. you can wright a book of it for each & every person in the world. It isn't just two sentences out of a book someone just read.

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 05:23 AM
I think we have no free will. We are, as another forum member put it: 'meat robots'. This belief is not very popular, I think, because a lot of people take the concept of choice as a universal truth. I believe nothing is chosen in the Universe...it just unfolds, the only way it could unfold. If choice doesn't exist in the Universe, why is not having free will bad? It's only natural.

The problem arises when you try to say whether a person is responsible for his/her actions. According to this, they aren't, because they couldn't have acted any other way. On the other hand, their subjective experience says they did have a choice...so they are responsible.

I know, I know...I'm saying stuff and debunking it in the same post...so much for a conclusion. But this is what philosophy is all about to me :lolflag:

you sould read 'the selfish gene' :guitar:

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 05:29 AM
hah nice ;)

davidsiegel
October 16th, 2007, 05:43 AM
If you're looking for a "philosophy of life" on an internet forum, you need to turn your computer off right now. You can only learn about life from living it--go live it.

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 05:49 AM
thanks for being completely intellectually void and ignoring what I said to state your own point.

I'm asking for others to share their epiphanies, realizations, that inevitably formed their own philosophies. get out.

davidsiegel
October 16th, 2007, 06:29 AM
Harsh. Read my post again, and perhaps you'll discover that it contains an epiphany I once had.

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 06:34 AM
I think it's a bit 'harsh' to assume none of us are living our lives by being on this forum. is it really a crime to share knowledge of life experience? it is impossible for the human race to evolve mentally without sharing knowledge and experiences.

I say, take knowledge, insight, anything, where you can get it. it's all useful in some way.

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 06:36 AM
davesiegel, I think maybe you're the one who should read a post again, namely the first post in the thread. He's not looking to find a philosophy from the board. He's interested in hearing about others' experiences.

davidsiegel
October 16th, 2007, 06:41 AM
I agree. I'm sorry you read my original response as some sort of an attack---I meant to address an impersonal "you," as if I had written "you can't step in the same river twice," not "you" as in "you guys posting in this thread." Peace.

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 06:43 AM
I agree. I'm sorry you read my original response as some sort of an attack---I meant to address an impersonal "you," as if I had written "you can't step in the same river twice," not "you" as in "you guys posting in this thread." Peace.

That's different, and if that's how you meant it, I certainly agree.

perce
October 16th, 2007, 08:14 AM
May I quote Shakespeare?

Life [...] is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

mindtrick
October 16th, 2007, 09:46 AM
Radical Nihilism

Patrick-Ruff
October 16th, 2007, 02:22 PM
hah, I don't see anything radical about nihilism ;).

lyceum
October 16th, 2007, 02:46 PM
Here are a few:

"Freedom is the right of all sentinet beings" - Optimus Prime

"Teach Correct principlas and let them govern themselves" - Joseph Smith

"Judge not lest yea be judged" - the Bible

"Trust in me and fall as well" - Tool

"I looked to God just to see, and I was lookign at me" - Marilin Manson

:guitar:

the.dark.lord
October 16th, 2007, 02:57 PM
The Law of Attraction by Esther and Jerry Hicks for me!

mindtrick
October 16th, 2007, 03:39 PM
hah, I don't see anything radical about nihilism ;).

I like your location.

undine
October 16th, 2007, 03:50 PM
I don't think you can reduce any philosophy worth its salt down to some pithy catch-phrase that can fit on a refridgerator magnet. Besides, it is the activity of philosophy, more than any particular ethical codification which is really important. Ok, here's something you probably could fit on a refridgerator magnet, but it's worth consideirng anyway: every answer is only the germ of another question.

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Here are a few:

"Freedom is the right of all sentinet beings" - Optimus Prime

"Teach Correct principlas and let them govern themselves" - Joseph Smith

"Judge not lest yea be judged" - the Bible

"Trust in me and fall as well" - Tool

"I looked to God just to see, and I was lookign at me" - Marilin Manson

:guitar:

* Describe freedom
* what are correct principals
* You can only judge your self!
* Never "trust" your happiness to someone els, because your the only one that can make yourself happy
* If there is a god... he is everywhere & in everything & everyone !

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Patrick-Ruff;

You got your 'life philosophy from The Peaceful Warrior. I got curious, but sins I have to read more then 1000 pages this week I didn't have the time to read the book. I saw the movie. Some interesting things :popcorn: some of does I had figured out on my own. But I don't thing if I had seen the movie or read the book I had have understood does things. *** they presume in the movie, you have to experience & find your own way to live life.

P.S. Nice movie! predictable, but nice.

Ireclan
October 16th, 2007, 05:38 PM
That is a philosophy to :lolflag:

I disagree, but since the original poster doesn't wish to hear my point of view, let's just leave it at that.

lyceum
October 16th, 2007, 06:45 PM
* Describe freedom
* what are correct principals
* You can only judge your self!
* Never "trust" your happiness to someone els, because your the only one that can make yourself happy
* If there is a god... he is everywhere & in everything & everyone !

* Freedom is doing what you will, provided it has no direct negative effect on others.
* the statment infures that you can state you opinion, but you can not force it on others. Correct can be an opinion.
* I agree
* That is an opinion, a very Hindu/sudo-Christain opinion, but an opinion. :)

lode
October 16th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I consider myself an existentialist; meaning that I believe that every being (has to) create its own meaning, if it wants any. Sartre and Camus are my homeboys :)

To contribute to the Descartes discussion above:
to more completely comprehend Descartes' point it might be useful to give a more complete version of his famous quote:

Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum,
or, in French:
je doute, donc je pense, donc je suis:

I am in doubt, therefore I am thinking and therefore I am.

Being able to be in doubt, means at least you are able to think, which, Descartes says, should prove your existence.

Samhain13
October 16th, 2007, 07:29 PM
I am a Man of Truth.
I am a Free Human Person.
I am a Peacemaker.

:D

Erik Trybom
October 16th, 2007, 07:59 PM
I think any rule telling us how to live, no matter how simple or complex, can always be shown to be wrong in certain hypotethical or real situations.

I, for example, like to think that the ends do not justify the means. Killing civilians in a war is always wrong even if you fight on the good side, and so on. It's not very hard to come up with a scenario where the ends actually do justify the means, but in general I tend to lean more towards the philosphy that they don't.

Mr. Picklesworth
October 16th, 2007, 09:08 PM
I don't really have the moneyNo libraries? Actually, a lot of the older, more famous and influential philosophical works that people talk about can be found on sites like WikiSource.

One really good thing to read, which has quite a surprising philosophical meaning, is The Epic of Gilgamesh. The story of the story is cool enough, and what I find particularly neat is how that sort of goes along with its message of immortality. The Epic itself could be considered immortal, seeing as it has existed for millenia and can be compared to practically every story created since. Some information is missing (particularly unfortunate is a final warning from Gilgamesh's mother -- although that being cut off has a striking resemblance to a lot of cheesey action movies; "remember, do not -----"), but it all makes sense in the end. I think it's incredible that a story written so long ago has such meaning as well as a coherent plot. The final lines repeat a message from the beginning of the story, at that point giving it a meaning that was not understood when the story began. Those lines are a plea to look upon the beautiful, long-lasting structures of our civilization; the true value of which is amazingly portrayed by their pivotal flood myth. ("Pivotal" being not just a turning point in the story, but in the meaning of life and the value of mortality).

For some reason, people do not consider stuff from dates like 2600 BC to have any significance in today's world. My opinion was definitely changed by how well crafted this epic is, and how meaningful it is even today, over 4000 years later.
I hate to suggest it, but I think the divide in our calendars, created by that whole Jesus thing, has devalued the progress made beyond 2007 years ago. There were some amazing, influential ideas developed in that time, and there were people then in no way barbaric like the stereotypical "man a few centuries ago" that people seem to see. Time did not move backwards for the great minds back then; we should stop pretending it did, and put some care to learn what they saw.

BobCFC
October 16th, 2007, 09:22 PM
you sould read 'the selfish gene' :guitar:



I agree, Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest thinkers among us today.


EDIT: Insert some joke about 'I am, because you are' <here>.

Tlon
October 16th, 2007, 09:52 PM
I, for example, like to think that the ends do not justify the means. Killing civilians in a war is always wrong even if you fight on the good side, and so on. It's not very hard to come up with a scenario where the ends actually do justify the means, but in general I tend to lean more towards the philosphy that they don't.

I'm not sure you understand exactly what the philosophical problem is in the case of the means and ends question. The question is whether the moral status of an activity is inherent to the activity or rather determined a posteriori. IOW, "what do we mean when we speak of something as having been 'justified'?" It has nothing to do with situational contingencies.

As Lenin put it: "Of course the ends justify the means... if not the ends, then what?"

reza81
October 16th, 2007, 11:03 PM
I consider myself an existentialist; meaning that I believe that every being (has to) create its own meaning, if it wants any. Sartre and Camus are my homeboys :)

To contribute to the Descartes discussion above:
to more completely comprehend Descartes' point it might be useful to give a more complete version of his famous quote:

Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum,
or, in French:
je doute, donc je pense, donc je suis:

I am in doubt, therefore I am thinking and therefore I am.

Being able to be in doubt, means at least you are able to think, which, Descartes says, should prove your existence.

To get a good idea what Decartes actually ment by this ... take a look here:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4b.htm

thisllub
October 17th, 2007, 12:03 AM
I agree, Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest thinkers among us today.
.

He is among many others here

http://edge.org

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 01:30 AM
ok, seems like I have a lot to reply to . . .

1. my location, I need to change that as I've adopted the idea that there are no ordinary moments (also from the peaceful warrior)

2. book vs movie: the movie has some idea's that I didn't recall seeing in the book like 'it's not the destination, it's the journey', but over all if you want to expand your insight dramatically, pick up the book, it has far more than the movie.

3. library: I live 20 miles away from the closest public library. and I'm quite poor at the moment ;).

4. a reminder to those who reference books again . . . please state some examples ;).

lisati
October 17th, 2007, 01:34 AM
LOL

Well, my english is realy poor! I know... What I ment was evolution! We are becouse we think (Decartes).

Or is it that we are, therefore we think?

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 01:36 AM
I disagree, but since the original poster doesn't wish to hear my point of view, let's just leave it at that.

I don't recall ever saying I didn't want to hear your point of view. but that's fine by me.

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Or is it that we are, therefore we think?

heh, we already got that solved on the second page unless that was a joke ;).

lisati
October 17th, 2007, 01:39 AM
3. library: I live 20 miles away from the closest public library. and I'm quite poor at the moment ;).


I suspect that if we looked beyond the common monetary measures of wealth and riches, you'd probably find that you are better off than might first appear. This could probably be said of most (all?) of the contributors to these forums - the ability to read the contibutions counts for something.

lisati
October 17th, 2007, 01:39 AM
heh, we already got that solved on the second page unless that was a joke ;).

Apologies - in my haste I missed it.

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 02:28 AM
"Your consciousness isn't a part of you, you are a part of your consciousness."

southernman
October 17th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Patrick, I feel the need to interject something that may or may not be considered as "on topic" but, here goes none-the-less. You said...


library: I live 20 miles away from the closest public library. and I'm quite poor at the moment

Just to expand on what lisati suggest to you, I further suggest a principle of one of the Universal Laws, that being the "Law of Attraction."

If you say, whether to yourself or publicly, you are poor... then my friend, that is exactly what you are headed for more of. If on the other hand you twist ever so slightly and say to yourself (or publicly), I am rich... then be prepared to take action when the universe lines up with your vibrations and presents you with a means to be just that... rich. Poor or rich, I am not just meaning monetarily wise, though money could very well be what your seeking... !

The law of attraction is not able to differentiate between one saying to oneself... I DON'T want this or I DO want this. Want or not, if it's what you are thinking about (sending the message *vibrations* to the universe, your source, and/or your god), it IS what you are in store for.

I've come in peace, not to rattle the serpents, but to share what I've begun to learn in my own journey.

Ireclan
October 17th, 2007, 03:13 AM
I don't recall ever saying I didn't want to hear your point of view. but that's fine by me.


...nhilistis and/or people who 'think' they don't embrace some sort of philosophy can kindly stay out.

How am I supposed to interpret this?

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 03:30 AM
well, that wasn't directed at you, but now I see what you mean.

anyways, I don't believe just because I publicly state that I'm below poverty that I am going to end up poor later on . . . I'm sure you have some details that make sense but what you stated there didn't make any sense to me.

Cows
October 17th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Patrick I'm not sure if I agree with your "not happy now , never be happy" thing but I guess It's pretty true if you think about it :D.

southernman
October 17th, 2007, 03:42 AM
Yeah, sorry! It was a bit of a mess!

Quote from Wikipedia:

The Law of Attraction is commonly associated with New Thought and New Age theories, beliefs, and practices. It states that people experience physical and mental manifestations that correspond to their predominant thoughts, feelings, words, and actions and that people therefore have direct control over reality and their lives through thought alone. A person's thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, beliefs and actions are said to attract corresponding positive and negative experiences, or "harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction". [1] The "law of attraction" states "you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your experience."[2] Although this idea has been popular among certain philosophers and denominational adherents for centuries, the idea has received intense criticism from multiple circles in the media, the scientific community, and even some areas of the New Age Movement. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction

First twenty minutes of a movie called "The Secret" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8) as featured on Larry King, Oprah and all over the www.

Hopefully, that'll get the point across better that what I attempted.

To compare the law of attraction (like attracts like) to another famous quote... two in fact.

I think, therefore I am.

and

My signature quote

Boaslad
October 17th, 2007, 03:51 AM
"work to live, don't live to work."
"You can always get a different job...Families are harder to replace."
"Clean Living + Diet + Exercise = Die anyway."
"Never trust any one who uses the words 'Trust me' "
"Be careful of the toes you step on today as they may be attached to the butt you will have to kiss tomorrow."
"You will never truly understand the ideas of another until you are willing to accept the possibility that there may be a chance that you might actually be wrong."
And my all time favorite is the one in my signature...

edd07
October 17th, 2007, 03:51 AM
Just to expand on what lisati suggest to you, I further suggest a principle of one of the Universal Laws, that being the "Law of Attraction."
Be careful. The "Law" of attraction isn't really a law. If you believe in it, I have no problem with that, but you shouldn't claim it is a "Universal Law" or that it has been proved right.

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Patrick I'm not sure if I agree with your "not happy now , never be happy" thing but I guess It's pretty true if you think about it :D.

dude what are you doing on here and not on AIM? jeeze. lol

you should check out that book, some serious stuff there.

southernman
October 17th, 2007, 04:07 AM
Be careful. The "Law" of attraction isn't really a law. If you believe in it, I have no problem with that, but you shouldn't claim it is a "Universal Law" or that it has been proved right.

Be careful of what, exactly?

None of the Universal Laws (Laws of the Universe) are what we know in the present sense as a law written by our judicial system.

Curious, do you believe in the whole karma thing?

edd07
October 17th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Be careful of what, exactly?
You shouldn't claim something is true just because you believe in it. It's misleading


None of the Universal Laws (Laws of the Universe) are what we know in the present sense as a law written by our judicial system.
I didn't mean that kind of law. I mean a scientific law, one that has been proven right.


Curious, do you believe in the whole karma thing?
No, I don't. Why do you ask?

Patrick-Ruff
October 17th, 2007, 04:37 AM
I think he was going off of the assumption that you may have been saying that something bad will happen to him if he posts something misleading.

southernman
October 17th, 2007, 05:04 AM
You shouldn't claim something is true just because you believe in it. It's misleading

If I believe in it, how is it misleading? Unlike you, I totally believe in free will therefore, it's ok that I post such... and it's also ok if you disagree with what I post


I didn't mean that kind of law. I mean a scientific law, one that has been proven right.

Theory and research subjects are often discussed/taught in schools... so since they aren't proven, should they be thrown out and never discussed until proven with absolute certainty. There goes the whole curriculum on Philosophy then... dang! Sorry people, no refunds!


No, I don't. Why do you ask?

Well, it was a bit of a test question in a sense.

@Patrick - If you were referring to me asking "Be careful of what, exactly?"...


I think he was going off of the assumption that you may have been saying that something bad will happen to him if he posts something misleading.

It was more to how I read the context of ed's first reply to me:


Be careful. The "Law" of attraction isn't really a law. If you believe in it, I have no problem with that, but you shouldn't claim it is a "Universal Law" or that it has been proved right.

Which read to me as, "I want you to think I don't have a problem with your posting of that sort of thing here... but I really DO!

lol - I certainly don't feel a reprisal coming from what I posted. Had I called him out of his name and talked about his family... then I would await the wrath of the forum staff... and the karma that would ensue at some point in the future.

In my original post in fact, I disclaimed it with...


I've come in peace, not to rattle the serpents, but to share what I've begun to learn in my own journey.

Perhaps I should have expanded that disclaimer to say, "if this goes against your believes this post will self destruct for you in 15 seconds." but with more sincerity of course.

edd07
October 17th, 2007, 03:32 PM
Theory and research subjects are often discussed/taught in schools... so since they aren't proven, should they be thrown out and never discussed until proven with absolute certainty. There goes the whole curriculum on Philosophy then... dang! Sorry people, no refunds!
It's ok to teach them, but not to teach them as facts. When being taught a theory or a research subject, you should know it is one.


Which read to me as, "I want you to think I don't have a problem with your posting of that sort of thing here... but I really DO!
No, no, please don't take my 'be careful' as an attack. I did not mean something bad would happen to you, its just I've had people trying to convince me the law of attraction is really 100% right and is proven by quantum mechanics. Those people make me angry, and for a moment there, I thought you could be one of them. I apologize.

southernman
October 17th, 2007, 11:04 PM
No worries Edd... My apologies too, for taking your reply out of context. I appreciate your feelings on the matter. That's just another part of what makes us human... and different. :)

Patrick-Ruff
October 18th, 2007, 03:23 AM
alright, now that that's settled, lets get back to some more philosophy! anyone have anything to add? ;).

thisllub
October 18th, 2007, 03:27 AM
Yeah, sorry! It was a bit of a mess!

Quote from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction

First twenty minutes of a movie called "The Secret" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8) as featured on Larry King, Oprah and all over the www.

Hopefully, that'll get the point across better that what I attempted.

To compare the law of attraction (like attracts like) to another famous quote... two in fact.

I think, therefore I am.

and

My signature quote

The Secret is a fraud dreamt up by an Australian TV producer to separate gullible New-Agers and their money.

Worked pretty well too.

brokenstrides
October 18th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Dialectical Materialism :cool:

That's really interesting. Any specific reason why you follow that? And do you think that matter follows the dialect, or just events, thoughts, etc?

southernman
October 18th, 2007, 04:35 AM
The Secret is a fraud dreamt up by an Australian TV producer to separate gullible New-Agers and their money.

Worked pretty well too.
Now now! That's no way to talk about your fellow countrymen/women... is it? One man's fraud is another mans plausible theory.

Anyway, Patrick... thisllub made me do it! :p

23meg
October 18th, 2007, 04:52 AM
I don't "live by" any philosophy, and I don't really think philosophies are notions one can "live by"; most of the time I'm led to think what people mean by "their philosophy" is better defined as their world view, or their ideology. What I see as philosophy is more or less "the act of creating concepts" as defined by Deleuze.

The philosophers I've dived the most into so far are French post-structuralists (Deleuze in special), the Situationist International, some ancient Ionian and Greek philosophers (the pre-socratics in special), and of course, Marx. I'm looking to dive further into Islamic and Japanese philosophies in the near future.

p_quarles
October 18th, 2007, 05:03 AM
I don't "live by" any philosophy, and I don't really think philosophies are notions one can "live by"; most of the time I'm led to think what people mean by "their philosophy" is better defined as their world view, or their ideology. What I see as philosophy is more or less "the act of creating concepts" as defined by Deleuze.

The philosophers I've dived the most into so far are French post-structuralists (Deleuze in special), the Situationist International, some ancient Ionian and Greek philosophers (the pre-socratics in special), and of course, Marx. I'm looking to dive further into Islamic and Japanese philosophies in the near future.
I'm with you on this. I would add, though, that philosophy can help us understand the principles by which we live, and to reflect on them critically. I've abandoned many ideas I once held because I grew to understand how, in light of another idea, the first one was flawed.

Tangentially: have you read much in the way of the American pragmatist tradition? By this, I don't mean anything having to do with manifest destiny or neoconservative foreign policy (which falsely gets called "pragmatism"), but people like William James and John Dewey, and more recently John Rawls and Richard Rorty.

b9anders
October 18th, 2007, 09:35 PM
mahayana buddhism for me. I believe in karma - can't say I buy the version peddled in 'the secret' or the 'take all thinkers and mix it into one view and pretend they're all saying the same' mentality behind it. If studying philosophy at uni has taught me anything it is to respect lines of thinking by not performing hack jobs on them.

Fbot1
October 18th, 2007, 10:37 PM
I think we have no free will. We are, as another forum member put it: 'meat robots'.

...

StewartM
October 18th, 2007, 10:45 PM
Dialectical Materialism :cool:

Ok with the 2nd part, the dialectics could be left out though. :roll:

Stewart

StewartM
October 18th, 2007, 10:54 PM
That is a philosophy to :lolflag:

All people who claim to be bereft of philosophy are usually following the maxims of some defunct philosopher. ;-)

To me, the most interesting subject of philosophy is epistemology. So much of popular discussion around philosophy involve discussions of ethics or meaning or the so-called "big truths" without delving into questions of "how do you know what you know?" and "what is knowledge?". It seems pointless to claim answers to the "big questions" until you can argue some basis for what constitutes "knowing".

Just my two cents, of course.... :popcorn:

Stewart

23meg
November 5th, 2007, 08:34 AM
I'm with you on this. I would add, though, that philosophy can help us understand the principles by which we live, and to reflect on them critically. I've abandoned many ideas I once held because I grew to understand how, in light of another idea, the first one was flawed.


Do you, however, do things differently after reading a philosophy book?

I just read an intriguing article by Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/) titled How To Do Philosophy (http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html), where he raises the unpopular notion of the "usefulness" or practical value of philosophy, and in quite a controversial manner. It's an interesting read.


Tangentially: have you read much in the way of the American pragmatist tradition? By this, I don't mean anything having to do with manifest destiny or neoconservative foreign policy (which falsely gets called "pragmatism"), but people like William James and John Dewey, and more recently John Rawls and Richard Rorty.

Not more than a few paragraphs as part of high school curriculum. Now that I think of it, I think haven't read any north American philosophy at all, except for Marshall McLuhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan).

caligarn
November 26th, 2007, 09:15 AM
i like to think that it is important to pursue pressing questions that could be the deciding factor in the way one sees the world, like: who am i? what happens to me at death? what is existence?....and maybe even questions of Why?....and since i've been studying and practicing Buddhism for the last 5 years...consciousness is definitely something interesting to explore beyond just ideas about it. you know, like delving into what you intuit is consciousness...how do i intuit that?...

Experience itself, i think is a fascinating subject. In addition to process...i.e. the process of coming up with an idea.

And of course, although it might be taboo, that which is ineffable really fascinates me, whatever that thing might be. I mean, I'm not just talking about God as an ineffable concept. But the concept of ineffability itself i think is deeply philosophical (whatever philosophical means)...like...just the fact that some things cannot even be thought about. beyond conception....

one thing i've been thinking about a lot lately is what is the affect of internet and the latest electronic mediums on our consciousness and way of thinking. (hence, i appreciate the beforementioned Marshal Mcluhan)

agim
January 5th, 2008, 08:14 PM
great post. I like rand, dostoevsky. They are novelists, but they are thought provoking.

Patrick-Ruff
January 5th, 2008, 08:26 PM
I usually prefer philosophy in the form of a novel. usually a first person does best, as if you had figured it out yourself ;).

agim
January 5th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Haha couldn't agree more. I have been reading Norman Mailer lately, and though he may not be termed a philosopher, he is a great writer, with a few gems thrown in to his novels.
I have to admit, I only started reading him because his passing was in the news, but I am glad I did.

so far I have read:
An American Dream (not as cheesy as it sounds, the term 'american dream' wasn't prominent, if they used it at all)

The Gospel According to the Son (just like it sounds, a gospel from Jesus' perspective)

The second one started a little on the "I've read all of these thoughts before" side of things, but the rest of the book was very good.

SolusNunquam
January 5th, 2008, 08:34 PM
"Nunquam Minus Solus Quam Cum Solus" don't know if it's correct in latin, but it means Never less alone than when alone.

toupeiro
January 5th, 2008, 08:44 PM
In life:
Don't sweat the small stuff; its all small stuff

In work:
Detail is everything, especially the ones everyone else overlooks.

In relations:
One great friend is better than a million good acquaintances.

Patrick-Ruff
January 7th, 2008, 06:07 AM
good one toupeiro, I like the one about work the most.

IYY
January 8th, 2008, 08:24 AM
My favourite philosophers are Dostoyevsky, Spinoza and Nietzsche. I also like Kant, Descartes (his method, not his conclusions) and Plato.

I enjoy metaphysics, philosophy of religion, mind, and science (especially quantum mechanics).

I particularly dislike Ayn Rand (not only pretentious and smug, but downright evil), radical empiricists, and various new-age "philosophies" like The Secret.