Be a Supporter!

The Philosophy Crew

  • 38,932 Views
  • 927 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Kwing
Kwing
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Game Developer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 03:57 PM Reply

Ever since reading The Boy Who Saw True, and hearing about the validity of auras, I've been fascinated. Clairvoyant people have recorded some auras that pertained to certain frequencies detected by scientists. Since, my philosophy has grown largely. Since I was about 7 or 8, I'd strongly believed in dimensions, and a philosophy based around them. It seemed a logical explanation. When auras and energy fields mixed into the equation, and that of some people using energy healing, or seeing apparitions, I have developed a kind of Scientific Spiritualism belief, based on my conclusion that matter is a form of energy. As such, my perception is that when people like Christians coin the term "God is in all of us," that it's more true than they think. My perception of God is the sum of all energy, of all forms of matter in all of the dimensions. Thus, God is not an organism, nor is it an intellectual being with agendas. Scientists have discovered that the hypothesis of an experiment alters the outcome. Though this, I have concluded that we essentially created ourselves and the world we live in. There is no right and wrong; right and wrong are merely what the majority of people believe. However, if all beings on the planet suddenly ceased to believe the existence of gravity, this would not apply, because of time. We would all have to hold this belief until the time span of which we believed in gravity was outweighed by our time of disbelief. Thus, the longer we believe in a principle, the stronger it is cemented into our plane of existence. As for other dimensions, I believe they're closer to us than we think. For instance, I believe we have an alternate self on all of the dimensions, however many there may be. A version of us in binary, in the first dimension, a version of us in the surface areas of objects (shadows), our 3-dimensional selves, our spiritual selves, and so on. Thus, my perception is that shadows on solid surfaces create the 2nd dimension, and that our spiritual apparitions, such as when we die or sleep, are our 4-dimensional selves, on the astrological plane. Although I've tried to reason out the existence of the 4th dimension, I find it difficult. Scientists have deduced that the 4th DIMENSION, or PROPERTY, is whether the object is in a time or a place, and have reasoned that it can't be both. I disagree, because of the harmony of the universe as we know it. Our current dimensions, length, width, and height, are numeric, and I suspect that the 4th dimension is the same. However, this makes it utterly impossible to delve into a further understanding without heavy meditation and personal experience. Another thing to screw up your brain: Suppose in the second dimension, we have an airborne object with shadows projected on it, or even a different planet. Would this connect into the same world, or parallel universes BOTH within the 2nd dimension? I believe the latter. That's my philosophy. Can I join now?


If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 04:05 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 03:57 PM, Kwing wrote: Ever since reading The Boy Who Saw True, and hearing about the validity of auras, I've been Would ...blablabla.....this connect into the same world, or parallel universes BOTH within the 2nd dimension? I believe the latter. That's my philosophy. Can I join now?

Holy shit. Two things.

Learn to paragraph, that gave me a headache.

Two, give me some of what your smoking.

I've never heard anything like this before, your spirituality, or whatever you want to call it is pretty out there. I really don't get it...
But I guess you can join, no that I think this is well reasoned, it doesn't seem very coherent to me, anyone else got more opinions?

SeaBoundRhino
SeaBoundRhino
  • Member since: Jan. 31, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 04:24 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 03:57 PM, Kwing wrote: That's my philosophy. Can I join now?

Yes.
That was an immensely interesting philosophy. But can I ask you two questions? Firstly, and more importantly, about God being an energy, do feel this fits in with the ontological argument or do you feel that the ontological argument is flawed and should be ignored?

Secondly, have you ever considered the theory that the universe is a four dimensional doughnut? That might fit in with your theory quite nicely.

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 04:53 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 04:24 PM, SeaBoundRhino wrote:
At 4/8/09 03:57 PM, Kwing wrote: That's my philosophy. Can I join now?
Yes.
That was an immensely interesting philosophy. But can I ask you two questions? Firstly, and more importantly, about God being an energy, do feel this fits in with the ontological argument or do you feel that the ontological argument is flawed and should be ignored?

Secondly, have you ever considered the theory that the universe is a four dimensional doughnut? That might fit in with your theory quite nicely.

Hmmmm... doughnuts...

You lost me there guys.

SeaBoundRhino, since you seem so eager to accept people into the club, i'll make you my second hand man. How does that sound?

SeaBoundRhino
SeaBoundRhino
  • Member since: Jan. 31, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 05:20 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 04:53 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote: Hmmmm... doughnuts...

You lost me there guys.

SeaBoundRhino, since you seem so eager to accept people into the club, i'll make you my second hand man. How does that sound?

Yes, doughnuts, seriously. Think of it like this, Say you're on a doughnut and you move forward (along the top of it), you'll eventually come back to your starting point. Now, turn to the side and keep walking (so you go underneath the doughnut and back to your starting point. This means that if we lived in two dimensions, we would be living in a three-dimensional doughnut. Since we are living in three-dimensions, the natural conclusion is that we living in a four dimensional doughnut, but what the hell does that look like?
This got me thinking, what if we are really living in four-dimensions, but are mind has just been trained to live in the third. And what if it doesn't end at the fourth? What if we're in the sixth dimension and we've only really started to scratch the surface?

And that sounds nice :D

SeaBoundRhino
SeaBoundRhino
  • Member since: Jan. 31, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 05:23 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 05:20 PM, SeaBoundRhino wrote: Yes, doughnuts, seriously. Think of it like this, Say you're on a doughnut and you move forward (along the top of it), you'll eventually come back to your starting point. Now, turn to the side and keep walking (so you go underneath the doughnut and back to your starting point. This means that if we lived in two dimensions, we would be living in a three-dimensional doughnut. Since we are living in three-dimensions, the natural conclusion is that we living in a four dimensional doughnut, but what the hell does that look like?

Sorry, I forgot to say that the universe is believed to be finite, but not to have an edge. It's supposed to be there before the doughnut part.

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 06:04 PM Reply

1. Zachary "PuddinN64" Jones
2. 16
3. 10-21-92
4. To have a little space to express my ideas and feelings.

So, can I join?


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 06:33 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 05:23 PM, SeaBoundRhino wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to say that the universe is believed to be finite, but not to have an edge. It's supposed to be there before the doughnut part.

See I was always told the 4th dimension was simply time. Because physically speaking, there only seems to be three dimensions. If you're talking about the universe having a finite end, but no edge, I would think it's probable, except I think our brain may just imagine it as finite, because we are incapable of imagining something infinite.

But yea it might be just a sphere or a doughnut, with no end. Warp holes would also make more sense in that case, as to where one point in the universe, while being far away from another could at the same time be so close.

I'm telling you, space time continuum is messed up..

AS for the fellow that wants to join here's your question:
What is the reason, if there is one, behind existence as we know it? Is this our true existence?

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 07:49 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 06:33 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
AS for the fellow that wants to join here's your question:
What is the reason, if there is one, behind existence as we know it? Is this our true existence?

I believe our true existance is to improve the world, by righting the wrongs we see. If you look at back in time, you'll see we are living much better than the people before us. Mine and your job in the world is to fix what problems we can, like Global Warming or how to work faster and more efficently. Our only goal is to improve the world and to reproduce, to carry on the DNA. Nothing more and nothing less.

This is our one true existance, I believe that some greater force put us here for that. What happens after this life, is unknown. I hope, and have faith in an afterlife though.


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 07:55 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 07:49 PM, puddinN64 wrote:
At 4/8/09 06:33 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
AS for the fellow that wants to join here's your question:
What is the reason, if there is one, behind existence as we know it? Is this our true existence?
I believe our true existance is to improve the world, by righting the wrongs we see. If you look at back in time, you'll see we are living much better than the people before us. Mine and your job in the world is to fix what problems we can, like Global Warming or how to work faster and more efficently. Our only goal is to improve the world and to reproduce, to carry on the DNA. Nothing more and nothing less.

This is our one true existance, I believe that some greater force put us here for that. What happens after this life, is unknown. I hope, and have faith in an afterlife though.

Everyone hopes in an after life, not a lot of people wish to cease existing, the great gift of life is something that all of us seem to hold precious from birth.

Would you include our own evolution then as an improvement?

It seems like an interesting point of view.. I don't know how much being here simply to improve ourselves and the world around us makes much sense to me, but it seems like a good idea.

Congrats, you're in.

MrCrawford
MrCrawford
  • Member since: Mar. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Artist
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 08:07 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 03:11 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
He pretty much believed in coops, where the workers owned the companies. This had nothing to do with government. I think it would be great if all companies were cooperatives, and all workers could profit more from the work they do. But to take this into politics is a bad idea, because once you have one person in control, like most communists do, greed comes into play and everything gets fucked up. In fact greed always comes into play anyway, however you put it.

The basis that was to spread out the wealth went to the head of a lot of people.

It has absolutely everything to do with government, and more importantly an eventual lack thereof. Marxist philosophy emerges in the time of classical liberalism, an ideal closer to laissez faire fiscal conservatism than the current connotation (just in case somebody gets their wires crossed... classical liberalism is NOT today's liberalism). Without a government, either centrally planned as we have them no or simply a government composed of all people, one cannot oversee the process of wealth redistribution, as well as the implementation of government programs and construction.

Secondly, there is an error in your summation of "like most communists do". There are no communist nations on the earth, no matter what Cuba or China decides to call themselves. A man without a PhD can call himself Doctor, it still doesn't make it so. None of these countries espouses a purely Marxist form of government. True Marxists are not totalitarian dictators who absorb wealth, it is an economic organization in which corporations and enterprises are held accountable to the government and their wealth is redistributed to create equality of condition (as opposed to the out and out lie of equality of opportunity).


Now here's where the problem lies. If you put everyone on equal footing, and they don't have to strive to make money or survive, then your production goes down the drain. So yea, as much as it would be nice to have everyone share the wealth, we wouldn't go anywhere. Ever seen the movie WALL-E? If you have, all those humans is my idea of what would happen with no one having to work hard to get what they need. When you put people in a situation where they have to work hard to get where they want to be, they will usually work hard. Capitalism forces people to strive to be better. Communism says it doesn't matter how hard you work, you're all on the same level. How demoralizing is that. It's much better off to have certain people be ultra rich, and some people be ultra poor, than everyone be on equal footing, because you lose that competition, you lose that edge to strive.

Ah, the old panis et circus notion that without competition, society stagnates. How droll.

Capitalism does not push people to be better, it systematically represses them. Ignore, if you will, those who are merely rich, but focus on those whom are wealthy. These are the people who line the pockets of your government and lobby it to the point of legislative deadlock. These are the people who will spend half their fortune to protect their riches, or worse, to grow them.

This system you espouse desires only to continue squeezing the few dollars out of the lower classes by any means necessary. Why else is the Western economy collapsing? It is built on immaterial wealth and credit, the hallmark of capitalism's apogee. Consumption is the end result of your failing ideology, and it threatens to devour society.

Let us imagine a society in which we do not work for ravenous desire for more, but rather desire to improve ourselves. The main failing of capitalism is the over-focus on the "individual", interpreted as aesthetic choice and not the liberty to consume, but the God-given RIGHT to consume. How dare you set gas a little more expensive? How dare you say I can't buy more, more more? Me me me me me me me me me me me.

A communist society does not destroy the individual by rendering us autistic consumers, alone in our Platonic caves, but renders it purposeful in the body of a collective. Our society will not be based on the premise of survivalistic drive applied to mass production, but towards collective self-improvement. It is the ultimate overcoming of our Darwinian origins and using our minds to transcend this animalistic mindset.


Communism is a bad idea, as much as I think Marx was a smart man. It makes sense, it just does not apply because we are human.

It is because we are animal, not because we are human. It is our rationality, our humanity, that will propel us past this drudgery.

I'm sorry if some of this is out to lunch, the massive amounts of TL;DR on my part just confused me. If I notice I left something out, I'll post it up.


BBS Signature
ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 8th, 2009 @ 09:58 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 07:55 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
Everyone hopes in an after life, not a lot of people wish to cease existing, the great gift of life is something that all of us seem to hold precious from birth.

I completely agree.

Would you include our own evolution then as an improvement?

Yes, but have humans really evolved in the last 2000 years? Wouldn't an Egyptian man from 20 B.C. have the same anatomy as me? The same basic structure?

It seems like an interesting point of view.. I don't know how much being here simply to improve ourselves and the world around us makes much sense to me, but it seems like a good idea.

Well, just for kicks, why doesn't make sense? What is your answer to the question you asked me?

Congrats, you're in.

Yay.


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 02:04 AM Reply

At 4/8/09 08:07 PM, MrCrawford wrote:
It has absolutely everything to do with government, and more importantly an eventual lack thereof. Marxist philosophy emerges in the time of classical liberalism, an ideal closer to laissez faire fiscal conservatism than the current connotation (just in case somebody gets their wires crossed... classical liberalism is NOT today's liberalism). Without a government, either centrally planned as we have them no or simply a government composed of all people, one cannot oversee the process of wealth redistribution, as well as the implementation of government programs and construction.

A little throw down of the gauntlets I see. Now I think you have me wrong in my words dear sir. I did not say that Marx imagined a world without government, I said that his philosophy applied more to a social concept than a political concept. But herein lies the problem with your idea, we can't have everyone govern. You can't have a government of all people. That's why we elect officials, and as truly corrupt as most officials might be, they are still more effective than all people trying to run the government together. It simply would not work. There has to be a leader, because people like to look up to a leader, and need a leader to direct them as to where they should go. Too many people means too many directions.


Secondly, there is an error in your summation of "like most communists do". There are no communist nations on the earth, no matter what Cuba or China decides to call themselves. A man without a PhD can call himself Doctor, it still doesn't make it so. None of these countries espouses a purely Marxist form of government. True Marxists are not totalitarian dictators who absorb wealth, it is an economic organization in which corporations and enterprises are held accountable to the government and their wealth is redistributed to create equality of condition (as opposed to the out and out lie of equality of opportunity).

There is no error. I do mean by that, those governments that consider themselves "communists" because they are essentially more communist than we are. It is simply a label. Trust me I'm not stupid enough to believe that communism could actually exist, you don't need to point that out. The flaw in your argument here lies in that you say that corporations and enterprises should be held accountable to the government. Corporations should and could only be accountable to the people that own these corporations. In this case, I would rather see many workers with an interest in the company they work in a/k/a a cooperation, than a government running many companies. I truly think Marx saw it that way more than he did having a controlling government.

Ah, the old panis et circus notion that without competition, society stagnates. How droll.

It's not droll, it's true. Do you think that early man decided to build weapons or fire out of thin air. With necessity there comes creation. Without necessity, there comes stagnation. Feed the people and they shall not be hungry. Do not feed them, and they shall compete for their food if need be. We cannot keep having a growing population without competition for resources.


Capitalism does not push people to be better, it systematically represses them. Ignore, if you will, those who are merely rich, but focus on those whom are wealthy. These are the people who line the pockets of your government and lobby it to the point of legislative deadlock. These are the people who will spend half their fortune to protect their riches, or worse, to grow them.

I agree that there is greed in this world, but I do not object to it. We would not be where we are today if it wasn't for greed. It is both our demise and our premise. But I think you see more evil than there actually is. There is lobbying and lining of the government, but who wouldn't want to see their interests flourish. Humans are egocentric because your needs come first before others needs. If you were about to starve and had one meal, you would not share it with another, you would eat it for yourself, because you are an animal.


This system you espouse desires only to continue squeezing the few dollars out of the lower classes by any means necessary. Why else is the Western economy collapsing? It is built on immaterial wealth and credit, the hallmark of capitalism's apogee. Consumption is the end result of your failing ideology, and it threatens to devour society.

You think this is the first time this has happened? I think I remember something called the depression. Fluctuations in the economy are part of the system. If you think this is our doom, you are too caught up in your anti-capitalism crap. Consumption comes simply from human need for security, approval, etc... An utopia of people living in equality is an utopia my friend. I won't call a sheep a lion.

Let us imagine a society in which we do not work for ravenous desire for more, but rather desire to improve ourselves. The main failing of capitalism is the over-focus on the "individual", interpreted as aesthetic choice and not the liberty to consume, but the God-given RIGHT to consume. How dare you set gas a little more expensive? How dare you say I can't buy more, more more? Me me me me me me me me me me me.

It is exactly as you say, naught but a figment of imagination. Why? Because it cannot exist. Capitalism does not focus on the individual because of the concept, it focuses on the individual because the individual focuses on himself. Supply and demand is a simple concept. If you want my cow bad enough, you'll have to give me your house for it, if I want to sell it bad enough, i'll take a penny. But why would you want it? Depends simply on your needs.

A communist society does not destroy the individual by rendering us autistic consumers, alone in our Platonic caves, but renders it purposeful in the body of a collective. Our society will not be based on the premise of survivalistic drive applied to mass production, but towards collective self-improvement. It is the ultimate overcoming of our Darwinian origins and using our minds to transcend this animalistic mindset.

You think for some reason that there is no collective self-improvement? So long the days of many many problems that we have learned to overcome. You truly are pessimistic about what this world is all about. I think that you give less credit to people than they deserve as far as finding a greater meaning goes and certainly getting out of their caves.

Sadly, there is no getting out of an animalistic mindset, because for as far as we have gotten from the days of living in caves, we are still so close to the same being.

It is because we are animal, not because we are human. It is our rationality, our humanity, that will propel us past this drudgery.

Our rationality only takes us past a certain point. I am sure that you are ready to give up all your goods and stop being a consumerist. If you weren't such a hypocrite about living out of this capitalistic world that lets you live in a comfortable home that your parents so gladly let you live in, with your nice computer, and your nice bed, and you nice tv, and you nice video games, then maybe you could try to teach me about the rationalistic sense of human kind into becoming more than consumerist. Become one with nature sir, and I shall believe you are truly unlike me.

Kwing
Kwing
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Game Developer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 02:35 PM Reply

At 4/8/09 04:24 PM, SeaBoundRhino wrote: That was an immensely interesting philosophy. But can I ask you two questions?

NO! In a philosophy thread, we -do not- ask questions. Pfft, you've already asked one.

Firstly, and more importantly, about God being an energy, do feel this fits in with the ontological argument or do you feel that the ontological argument is flawed and should be ignored?

I don't think an argument is really needed in the first place. I believe that if we honestly needed to know these things, they would be in more plain sight. That's why I don't let my philosophy influence my actions, it's more of some cosmic passtime. Although I honestly think that God being the entire field of energy to be extremely important in everything... And perhaps in a sad way. Through this, our spiritual beings are malleable, even though it's immortal. I've often been depressed at the thought that all memory will wane one day.

Secondly, have you ever considered the theory that the universe is a four dimensional doughnut? That might fit in with your theory quite nicely.

I've considered something of a band of energy circling around, but I never considered it to be 4th dimensional, probably an even higher dimension that I wouldn't even expect to understand.

And to that guy, sorry for not paragraphing, that's actually the first time I've written it all down. I think I'll paragraph it a little later.


If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 03:21 PM Reply

So, can I bring up Nazi philosophy here? You know, what they believed in, like being super-humans and such.

Was there anything good to it?


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 03:24 PM Reply

At 4/9/09 03:21 PM, puddinN64 wrote: So, can I bring up Nazi philosophy here? You know, what they believed in, like being super-humans and such.

Was there anything good to it?

Sure, why not... enlighten me. Free speech here you know.

I mean some people obviously believed in it. Some people still believe they can be superhumans, a/ka scientologists anyone?

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 03:50 PM Reply

At 4/9/09 03:24 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
Sure, why not... enlighten me. Free speech here you know.

Well, okay. Hitler and his followers believed that the Germans were part of the third Reich (Third Empire, 1st being the Romans and the 2nd being Germany before World War I) and they were destined to take over the world. They believed that they were better human beings than everyone else and that Non-Aryans were supposed to be their slaves. This can be seen in their treatment of Jews and other "undesirables". They believed that they would take over the world (Which, they came very close to) and would have a 1,000 year reign.

While this sounds insane, an entire country followed it during the 30's and World War II.

What are your thoughts on it.

I mean some people obviously believed in it. Some people still believe they can be superhumans, a/ka scientologists anyone?

Meh, do scientologists think they're better than everyone?


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

Kalix70
Kalix70
  • Member since: Apr. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 05:33 PM Reply

Kalix70
14
Mrach 13 1995

i was getting bored of having ideas an not being able to share them to close minded people who would only respond in a bad way to me

kakaap
kakaap
  • Member since: May. 25, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 06:17 PM Reply

regi (aap) veerhuis
a mere 15 years
04-04-1994 (always loved that date :P)
filosophic by nature. always thinking about stuff wich will have no use when you completed the theory and yet is not a false theory. therefore always looking for a way to express those ideas and to get it critised, so i may tweak, perfect or discard the theory.
ow and i'm from holland!
awesome country :D

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 07:16 PM Reply

Ok two want to join at the same time, this is going somewhere.

At 4/9/09 05:33 PM, Kalix70 wrote: Kalix70
14
Mrach 13 1995

i was getting bored of having ideas an not being able to share them to close minded people who would only respond in a bad way to me

First, learn to spell, please, it's quite irritating. Second, proper use of grammar if you want me to understand your ideas.
Your question will simply be to explain to me one of your most interesting philosophies, since you seem to deem them so interesting.

At 4/9/09 06:17 PM, kakaap wrote: regi (aap) veerhuis
a mere 15 years
04-04-1994 (always loved that date :P)
filosophic by nature. always thinking about stuff wich will have no use when you completed the theory and yet is not a false theory. therefore always looking for a way to express those ideas and to get it critised, so i may tweak, perfect or discard the theory.
ow and i'm from holland!
awesome country :D

I'll tell you the same as the other guy right before you. Learn to spell and use grammar. I almost want to refuse you just on the basis that you can't even spell philosophy. Seriously... o 0
I may give you a chance because you are not english, but please formulate you ideas a little better.
Tailored question to you being from Holland. What do you think of the Dutch aversion to Islam?

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 07:28 PM Reply

At 4/9/09 03:50 PM, puddinN64 wrote:
At 4/9/09 03:24 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
Sure, why not... enlighten me. Free speech here you know.
Well, okay. Hitler and his followers believed that the Germans were part of the third Reich (Third Empire, 1st being the Romans and the 2nd being Germany before World War I) and they were destined to take over the world. They believed that they were better human beings than everyone else and that Non-Aryans were supposed to be their slaves. This can be seen in their treatment of Jews and other "undesirables". They believed that they would take over the world (Which, they came very close to) and would have a 1,000 year reign.

While this sounds insane, an entire country followed it during the 30's and World War II.

What are your thoughts on it.

Well, desperate times call for desperate measures, and there always are certain people that are able to take advantage of peoples' desperation. Hitler was able to capitalize on the economic downfall post WWI and was able to push his own agenda. It was manipulative but brilliant in the way that he did it. I certainly do not approve of what he did, but you have to hand it to the man, he was a brilliant orator and tactician. Of course, the same hunger for power was ultimately his downfall, and he was probably mentally ill. But he did manage to do what hadn't been done since the Romans' time and almost took over all of Europe.


I mean some people obviously believed in it. Some people still believe they can be superhumans, a/ka scientologists anyone?
Meh, do scientologists think they're better than everyone?

Don't get me started on Scientologists and their speaking doll Tom Cruise. Haven't you seen the infamous video that spawned Project Chanology? Go to Gawker dot com and search for Tom Cruise. Watch the video and be enlightened by the craziness of this man that so many adore.

Scientology is a bad cult, and I am truly convinced that they use hypnotic techniques to draw people in. I mean seriously, a religion where the more money you give, the more powerful you become, to the point of where you are rid of illness and disease and are immortal. I've heard of claims of their higher level members supposedly being able to levitate and so on and so on.

Their original claim that was shot down by the FDA with their E-Meters, was that the E-Meter device could magically rid people of illnesses. Since the FDA said they were practicing medicine without a license, they had to now call the E-Meters religious artifacts that did God knows what. They claim to have some 8 million members in their religion, when there are only 55000. For some reason they are getting a few celebrities in their grasp, but they probably figure this is the best way to show that their religion is not a cult. Who would deny that celebrities are not correct. After all Oprah manages to make bestsellers over night and managed to elect a President.

So to answer your question, yes Scientologists believe themselves to be better than everyone else.

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 09:12 PM Reply

At 4/9/09 07:28 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote:
Well, desperate times call for desperate measures, and there always are certain people that are able to take advantage of peoples' desperation. Hitler was able to capitalize on the economic downfall post WWI and was able to push his own agenda. It was manipulative but brilliant in the way that he did it. I certainly do not approve of what he did, but you have to hand it to the man, he was a brilliant orator and tactician. Of course, the same hunger for power was ultimately his downfall, and he was probably mentally ill. But he did manage to do what hadn't been done since the Romans' time and almost took over all of Europe.

All very true. So, do you think that type of thinking could ever come back or is it dead? And do you think that any of that Nazi thinking could be utilized for good purposes?

So to answer your question, yes Scientologists believe themselves to be better than everyone else.

Wow, I had no idea. It sucks that people could fall victim to such a sick cult. It's times like these that almost make me regret our country having an open-policy about these types of things.

One interesting thing, is that I seem to associate Mormons with Scientologists. They both seem like cults to me, but with Mormons being closer to traditional Christians.

Would you agree with my views?


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 9th, 2009 @ 11:27 PM Reply

At 4/9/09 09:12 PM, puddinN64 wrote:
All very true. So, do you think that type of thinking could ever come back or is it dead? And do you think that any of that Nazi thinking could be utilized for good purposes?

I have a hard time believing it could, but then again there are some countries that are still under dictatorship...so you never know. Look at North Korea and China and a bunch of African countries that are pretty messy. I don't think Nazi thinking could be used for good purposes. Hate has no purpose.


Wow, I had no idea. It sucks that people could fall victim to such a sick cult. It's times like these that almost make me regret our country having an open-policy about these types of things.

Yea, there's always people that fall prey to cults, but the government decided that Scientology was a religion, so there's not a lot they can do about it. Freedom of religion gives you the right to start any religion you want. That's why our country exists. I don't think we can oppress someone for the religion they choose. That's not what our constitution says to do. But I don't think that cults or religion that take advantage of their followers should exist. You can't brake the law, even if you say it's for religious purposes. Their techniques in my vies draw the line beyond illegal things.

One interesting thing, is that I seem to associate Mormons with Scientologists. They both seem like cults to me, but with Mormons being closer to traditional Christians.

Mormons were originally considered a cult, a lot of Mormons give a lot of their money to the church. It's kind of iffy, but you have the right to give money to the church, that's how all churches survive. I think Mormons are really nice people, I've known quite a few. And yes, it is much closer to Christianity than those idiots that believe in alien souls that attach to their bodies.

Would you agree with my views?

That should answer your question.

Kalix70
Kalix70
  • Member since: Apr. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 10th, 2009 @ 01:15 AM Reply

first thing: about the spelling and grammaer im not frm the US im in South america`Peru my mother language is Spanish

the subject which i know more about are drugs. making drugs illegal is not the best way to go because if you illegalize them then its people are going to start selling them due to the giant amounts of money involved and atleast in America last time i checked was a 50 billion waste of tax money on a war that is failling because one drug cartel is replaced by another drug cartel over night because of the money and besides the drug posetion crime is also concerning because we are puting people who are ot criminals int jail because some people say that drugs are like being in hell s that means they fell miserable by using them so is it really going to help to put someone in jail just for feeling miserable. a solution for this would prbably be just legalizing drugs would the whole world become drugaddicts, no people arent stupid we know whats bad and whats good for our bodies. but most important more than being a money issue its more of a freedom because who is the goverment to tell me what to put in my body. any country that wants to call itself free has to aprve what yu put in your bodie no one else. Drugs are also sort of hypocrite because not all drugs are legal r illegal tabacco and alchol are legal why other drugs arent marijuana is less toxic than any of those drugs and its illegal and we hear that its a gateway drug why dont we hear this from alchol or tabacco thats because they are a billin dollar corporation.

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 10th, 2009 @ 01:53 PM Reply

At 4/10/09 01:15 AM, Kalix70 wrote: first thing: about the spelling and grammaer im not frm the US im in South america`Peru my mother language is Spanish

the subject which i know more about are drugs.

This is not political club. Philosophy club. I.E. why are we here, do we exist, those kind of questions. I don't feel an argument about legalization of drugs has something to do with philosophy. Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere. I know that in Spanish, they use punctuation, and this BBS uses a word spell checker, so if you see a dotted red line under a word, usually you can right click it and it will tell you the proper way to spell. Make an effort, that's all I ask. And no politics. Except for communism arguments, because that's more of a philosophy than just politics.

SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 10th, 2009 @ 06:08 PM Reply

Today is the day I make club rosters apparently. I said I would do this a while back, and I finally felt motivated enough to do one here also. I had decided early to become the new leader of this club, and no one objected, so unless StarDoggy comes back, we'll keep it that way for now.
This list includes everyone that has joined since Fremen reanimated the club in August of 08.

Myself - Club Leader
SeaBoundRhino - Co-Club Leader
Fremen - Club Reviver
DeathNoteetoNhtaeD
aninjaman
Ninja-Without-Sight
nutter11111
InsertFunnyUserName
snowfender
MrCrawford
Kwing
puddinN64

Unknown or inactive membership
RocketBean
Dr-Worm
OverCynicalBlasphemy
Mexifry
InnerChild548
Lkoz91
agustana
Madiesensei
Semiman1
Jew193

If you want to get off the unknown or inactive list, just let me know, you'll be more than welcome to attempt to rejoin.

To join, I changed the rule so that you have to answer a question that I ask you in a well thought out manner to be able to join.

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 43
Gamer
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 10th, 2009 @ 10:54 PM Reply

New question:

If you've seen the movie "Animal House" you know there is a scene where the stoned college professor states that our entire universe could be a speck on the fingernail of a greater being, and that in turn there could be an entire universe on a speck on one of our fingernails.

Do any of you guys think this could be plausible?


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

Chickidydow
Chickidydow
  • Member since: Sep. 22, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 10th, 2009 @ 11:22 PM Reply

How do I join this club, there are some things I've been mulling over that I'd like to share with a group of people who may take it seriously.


Teh Spoony Experiment. Click for a good time.

BBS Signature
SpiffyMasta
SpiffyMasta
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 11th, 2009 @ 01:03 AM Reply

At 4/10/09 10:54 PM, puddinN64 wrote: New question:

If you've seen the movie "Animal House" you know there is a scene where the stoned college professor states that our entire universe could be a speck on the fingernail of a greater being, and that in turn there could be an entire universe on a speck on one of our fingernails.

Do any of you guys think this could be plausible?

This was also explored in the movie Men in Black and in The Simpsons where the universe continuously loops on Homer.

Maybe it's just like a fifth dimension, where we actually live in a Universe that lives inside of us?

Seriously though, I don't think there is any way for us to know, but I don't really think it's plausible. Unless there is changes in time according to size our universe could collapse at any time if a cell died. And as much as we know about microscopic things, and atoms and quarks and stuff, I really don't see it as being plausible at all.

At 4/10/09 11:22 PM, Chickidydow wrote: How do I join this club, there are some things I've been mulling over that I'd like to share with a group of people who may take it seriously.

If you made the effort to read two posts before your own, or the first post in the club, then you might figure that out, wouldn't you!

If you want to join, i'll make it simple for you, go read the first post then post that info and then answer the question that puddinN64 just asked about universes, cause I'm too lazy to ask a question, just like you're too lazy to read.

Make it well thought out, to show that you can reason, and you're in.

DeathNoteetoNhtaeD
DeathNoteetoNhtaeD
  • Member since: May. 12, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to The Philosophy Crew Apr. 11th, 2009 @ 01:04 AM Reply

At 4/10/09 10:54 PM, puddinN64 wrote: New question:

If you've seen the movie "Animal House" you know there is a scene where the stoned college professor states that our entire universe could be a speck on the fingernail of a greater being, and that in turn there could be an entire universe on a speck on one of our fingernails.

There are a ton of theories like that, not limited to the greatest comedic achievement of the 1970's.

Do any of you guys think this could be plausible?

Anything's plausible, I suppose. First we would have to assume that the universe is finite, and then it could be possible. Since everything is relative, if our universe was contained by a grain of sand or the like, then it would have to exist in another universe, but that does not explicitly mean that there are other universes even if ours is finite. Also the other way applies, and opens new questions about the origins of the universe. If there is an endless cycle of universes contained within other universes, then where did it all begin? In fact, knowing if there are other universes ours contains or is contained by may raise more questions than it awnsers.

Also, it is feasible to connect the man whose fingernail we're under to "God".

Schwang-wang-wang

BBS Signature