Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/06 02:55 PM, Chronamut wrote: my face is not odd!

Well - the comment wasn't really directed at you - but the fact that you responded reveals your underlying confidence issues!!

And CERTAINLY not another "omg Chronamut is teh gay" thread!

You're (WinTang, Spams) still approaching philosophy as though it is mumbo jumbo:

To distinguish which dfifering philosophies are correct in any issues, exchange must be in the form of a debate; indeed it is Facts vs Facts, but those facts serve with statements and have examples, let's say on a certain subject, let's take world hunger as example: one side will fight for it's positives and the other side will fight for it's negatives, both sides have facts, and they must be weighed in order to set truth form falsity.

I do concur, the human language is small and puny and leads to lengthy discussions and discourses, but it's the meaning that counts, you may look at words and find implications and an attitude and all that stuff, but that doesn't matter and there's no particular reason why it should be resented.

My rhetoric is clear and precise and follows along a large vocabulary, but for a reason, not because I' am too incompetent too have ideas or to display them, but that is what I have come to accept, you cannot blame me for furthering my own abilities to showcase my purposes.

Some of you expect me to have a very proper and old-fashioned etiquette when it comes to talking, but I don't, I'm simply indifferent, aggressive at times but it never gets in the way of my debates and my stated facts, but when people find that aggressiveness they immediately decode the debate as a flame war, when no insults have been flung by myself, in a final attempt to lower the grounds to their own personal level.

Oh well, I didn't intend to say much, but too late!

silly erkie philosophizing and debating arent the same - an intellectual debate IS indeed a debate of facts versus facts where one person takes the positives and one person takes the negatives and it is usually based on world issues yes.

philosophies are based on "what if"s when CAN yes later on be proved right or wrong by science - for example the old classic philosophy of whether the world was flat or round.. or whatever the earth revolved around the sun or everything in the universe revolved around the earth - at this time tho there WERE no concrete facts.. just limited understanding of that around them.

also you're only observing OLD philosophies which may or may not have been proven wrong or right in our modern age - if I were to come up with a totally new philosophy that couldnt be proven right or wrong it would be indded a philosophy based on "what if's " and no real facts whatsoever - thus not making it a real world debate at all but just musings on either side - neither being wrong and both sides being totally valid points until one side was in some future proven wrong.

At 8/14/06 03:52 PM, Erkie wrote: You're (WinTang, Spams) still approaching philosophy as though it is mumbo jumbo:

To distinguish which dfifering philosophies are correct in any issues, exchange must be in the form of a debate; indeed it is Facts vs Facts, but those facts serve with statements and have examples, let's say on a certain subject, let's take world hunger as example: one side will fight for it's positives and the other side will fight for it's negatives, both sides have facts, and they must be weighed in order to set truth form falsity.

in philosophy correct is a subjective opinion.
World hunger is a strange example to choose, tho i see your point, but since this is philosophy anyway, truth is merely a subjective concept. There is no empirical scientific truth in philosophy.

Philosophy has actually, no facts as a concept. Philosophy is about speculation in the absence of facts. Since philosophy cannot prove anything, it is inherently useless.

I do concur, the human language is small and puny and leads to lengthy discussions and discourses, but it's the meaning that counts, you may look at words and find implications and an attitude and all that stuff, but that doesn't matter and there's no particular reason why it should be resented.

See previous, it is inherently useless.

My rhetoric is clear and precise and follows along a large vocabulary, but for a reason, not because I' am too incompetent too have ideas or to display them, but that is what I have come to accept, you cannot blame me for furthering my own abilities to showcase my purposes.

This isnt about gettin personal far as i'm concerned really. Its about how philosophy is a waste of time and resources IMO, and i could supply facts, but as philosophy student of a strong mind you will never accept that, so why bother.

Instead i will ask you, what have individual philosophers achieved for mankind. and whether anyone could come up with anything new and helpful in todays world.

<removed cos is irrelevant to the topic>

Oh well, I didn't intend to say much, but too late!

I'm hope you realize that when I log off, you cease to exist - right?

Hmmm. circles and loop de loops and swirly language does not, a philosophy, make.

Also... sorry to point this out Chron (really, I am) but the whole "world is flat" thing was not a philosophy - it was a theory - wondering why it was here at all is more along the lines of philosophy - but you know that...

So then - I've lost track - are we actually discussing something here or are we all just trying to impress each other with our lightning wit and dazzling feats of (il)logic?

Might as well just get it over with and start posting pictures of our dicks... That's really what it is that some of you are trying to figure out right?

This one is bigger than that one - but that one over there is wider - studies have shown that size counts - no it doesn't - yes it does.... bleh....

Then there's always that guy who'se hung like a hanster that insists that the "biggest erogenous zone" is the brain.....

hahahahaha

The biggest erogenous zone is in the br-

aw fuckin hell.

Something went wrong with your interpretation of my post Erkie, because I was actually defending both the usefulness of philosophy (stating that it is NOT mumbo jumbo) and a majority of the points you made.

silly erkie philosophizing and debating arent the same

I never said they were, debating is the medium which philosophy carries itself out to others, issues, and other philosophies.

philosophies are based on "what if"s when CAN yes later on be proved right or wrong by science

If the issue involves science, the issue will need a scientific answer.

If the issue if ethical, there are no grounds for that then rationality.

it would be indded a philosophy based on "what if's " and no real facts whatsoever

It is "real facts" that philosophies are based on, the What Ifs are based on the Is/Ought dichotomy, in the worlds of Aristotle:
"Fiction is greater then history, because history tells things as they were while fiction tells things as they ought to be". The ought distinction requires a real, physical distinction in the humanities in order define what it ought to be. This is how it is, this is how it ought to be.

Philosophies of the moral kind are depicted in all fictional novels, all novelists and writers are philosophers to that extent.

Philosophy is about speculation in the absence of facts.

Read above, philosophy serves as an Ought depiction to reality and humanity and ethical values, not scientific ones. In order to make those distinctions requires real world facts, how things are, and how they ought to be.

If you remove it's factuality, philosophy is no longer philosophy, it's arbitrary feelings and whims that are argued with no purpose and only a general idea on how it achieves it's end, what would ensue is much what happened in the Civil War, at least to it's own extents, physically, or mentally.

Instead i will ask you, what have individual philosophers achieved for mankind. and whether anyone could come up with anything new and helpful in todays world.

Aristotle is one of the earliest philosophers and offered his views of the world in a rationalized form, some of his works are ignored, but his best are used by most philosophers in existence.

It is not our own fault that philosophy isn't accepted, it is because of ignorant minds that reject evolutionary ideals for religious ones. "Because god wants it and you're the devil", God and the Devil being concretizations of their definitions of good and evil, is their essential response to anything a philosopher lays down.

Ayn Rand created her own incomplete, one-sided philosophy that serves itself much like a sculpter rather then an open book. The results of that philosophy are individualistic in their conception, each individual usually takes what he needs from philosophy and builds his life off of those principles, the ending result is his own developed joy, rather then a midlife crisis. But because of so much ignorance, philosophies are disregarded and fought by many, the majority, no results can be achieved because people ignore it.

On the other hand, there's no fight to be fought, only the people brave enough to ask questions will recieve the best results, and they're what counts.

Where does the line start blurring?

The line between philosophy and science can sometimes be a tricky one. It's somewhere in that area where metaphysics starts working it's magic...

Wanna see something very very cool? (no pun intended - you'll get it in a few minutes)

Follow the link and read up on Dr.Emoto's water experiments

Go read that and then we can discuss the implications of how a belief system can have a physical affect on our world.

At 8/14/06 02:10 PM, Chronamut wrote: is being gay so fucking weird that even tho ppl pretend its all fun and good they secretly think its still odd and wrong..?

Perhaps if you didn't play up to it so much...ah who am I kidding.

bah i'm supposed to be watching robocop, but sod it.

At 8/14/06 05:00 PM, Erkie wrote:

silly erkie philosophizing and debating arent the same

I never said they were, debating is the medium which philosophy carries itself out to others, issues, and other philosophies.

philosophies are based on "what if"s when CAN yes later on be proved right or wrong by science

If the issue involves science, the issue will need a scientific answer.

If the issue if ethical, there are no grounds for that then rationality.

so ethics isnt a matter of rationality? Isnt a matter of what is "right" and "wrong"

it would be indded a philosophy based on "what if's " and no real facts whatsoever

It is "real facts" that philosophies are based on, the What Ifs are based on the Is/Ought dichotomy, in the worlds of Aristotle:
"Fiction is greater then history, because history tells things as they were while fiction tells things as they ought to be". The ought distinction requires a real, physical distinction in the humanities in order define what it ought to be. This is how it is, this is how it ought to be.

History IS fiction. There might be some truth in it, but the whole truth of history can never be known. Not sure what you mean by the is/ought dichotomy, since i'm no philosophy student.

Philosophies of the moral kind are depicted in all fictional novels, all novelists and writers are philosophers to that extent.

And what have they achived for the benefit of mankind.

Philosophy is about speculation in the absence of facts.

Read above, philosophy serves as an Ought depiction to reality and humanity and ethical values, not scientific ones. In order to make those distinctions requires real world facts, how things are, and how they ought to be.

I fail to see how the speculation described here can have any useful bearing.

If you remove it's factuality, philosophy is no longer philosophy, it's arbitrary feelings and whims that are argued with no purpose and only a general idea on how it achieves it's end, what would ensue is much what happened in the Civil War, at least to it's own extents, physically, or mentally.

There is no factuality in speculation. You telling me, that without the concept of philosophy, the result would be war?

Instead i will ask you, what have individual philosophers achieved for mankind. and whether anyone could come up with anything new and helpful in todays world.

Aristotle is one of the earliest philosophers and offered his views of the world in a rationalized form, some of his works are ignored, but his best are used by most philosophers in existence.

And for the people that actually create, build and destroy things? Do they follow aristotles long dead words?

It is not our own fault that philosophy isn't accepted, it is because of ignorant minds that reject evolutionary ideals for religious ones. "Because god wants it and you're the devil", God and the Devil being concretizations of their definitions of good and evil, is their essential response to anything a philosopher lays down.

Religion IS a philosophy!

Ayn Rand created her own incomplete, one-sided philosophy that serves itself much like a sculpter rather then an open book. The results of that philosophy are individualistic in their conception, each individual usually takes what he needs from philosophy and builds his life off of those principles, the ending result is his own developed joy, rather then a midlife crisis. But because of so much ignorance, philosophies are disregarded and fought by many, the majority, no results can be achieved because people ignore it.

No one likes ayn rand. but seriously tho, people ignore philosophy because it cant come up with any more definite answer than "this is the way things are".

On the other hand, there's no fight to be fought, only the people brave enough to ask questions will recieve the best results, and they're what counts.

And you're trying to sucker in which demographic here? Sod it, i'm too tired for this.

Robocop 2 actually, and its shit, you're not missing much

off topic much?

Those water experiments are crazy, and if those results are for real and not doctored, then the world is just as bizarre and unexplainable as i expected it to be.

so ethics isnt a matter of rationality? Isnt a matter of what is "right" and "wrong"

I said there are no grounds to solve it, except rationality to decode the necessary answer, the answer is as simple as whether or not it's good to shoot an innocent man to what should constitute an innocent man.

History IS fiction.

Fiction.
History.

And what have they achived for the benefit of mankind.

Short answer: People like you.

Not upon their own faults, but your's to misinterpret them by a blatant form of presumption.

I fail to see how the speculation described here can have any useful bearing.

Because you have no idea what the Is/Ought dichotomy is. Goes to show how much YOU involve yourself in philosophy.

I fail to see how the speculation described here can have any useful bearing.

Speculation is an assumption or opinion based on incomplete information, in order for philosophy to be concretized for others to accept, the situations which the philosophy bases itself on requires concretized facts. Without such, it is not philosophy, it's just an uneducated opinion.

With the Is/Ought dichotomy, I have already told you that in order for philosophies to be ethical propositions, it must be based on why it was created; the now.

There is no factuality in speculation. You telling me, that without the concept of philosophy, the result would be war?

That without the ability to reason with someone else, yes. If you cannot rationalize to other men the issues of the world and of issues of your backyard, the arbitrary takes over and you have men who escalate their own personal involvement in the subject.

And for the people that actually create, build and destroy things?

Generalization, you are discussing the humanities, you are asking for results of philosophy, I'm telling you there are none, because the peopel out there are as stubborn as you. Only they have a deeper presumption preset by something else to tell them it doesn't work. Not reasonable explanations given; "That's just how it is".

Religion IS a philosophy!

Indeed it is. That is why I labelled philosophy "evolutionary ideals vs religious ideals" for that particular comparison, I did not negate it's stance as a philosophy, only an arrogant and close circuit one.

people ignore philosophy because it cant come up with any more definite answer than "this is the way things are".

The first philosophy defines is how things are, the next thing they do is explain how they ought to be, but in the case of Nihilism and Surrealism, they say that everything as it is and how it becames is all that it will be, you will be unhappy and die, but it doesn't matter, because we don't exist.

And you're trying to sucker in which demographic here?

Specific people as myself, no statistical information, just things I know for a fact; there is going to be one or two people out of a thousand who question.

At 8/14/06 09:39 PM, Erkie wrote:

so ethics isnt a matter of rationality? Isnt a matter of what is "right" and "wrong"

I said there are no grounds to solve it, except rationality to decode the necessary answer, the answer is as simple as whether or not it's good to shoot an innocent man to what should constitute an innocent man.

finally, something of relevance and use. But still, what can the academic study of philosophy achieve today. Just where is it relevant for pushing mankind into a better life?

History IS fiction.

Fiction.
History.

Fiction = made up storys

History = written by the winners, rulers, and governments.

And what have they achived for the benefit of mankind.

Short answer: People like you.

so the main achievement of philosophy, is people that spurn it and regard it as worthless to study? If a form of thinking could be said to be alive, this one is suicidal.

Not upon their own faults, but your's to misinterpret them by a blatant form of presumption.

I fail to see how the speculation described here can have any useful bearing.

Because you have no idea what the Is/Ought dichotomy is. Goes to show how much YOU involve yourself in philosophy.

Why should I, people who study philosophy always like to think they are better than people who dont, even if they dont talk about it.

Defend philosophy, or piss off. As it is i fail to see anything worthwhile.

I fail to see how the speculation described here can have any useful bearing.

Speculation is an assumption or opinion based on incomplete information, in order for philosophy to be concretized for others to accept, the situations which the philosophy bases itself on requires concretized facts. Without such, it is not philosophy, it's just an uneducated opinion.

Please show me an example of these "concretized facts" that philosophy bases itself on, the speculation based on it, and the factual benefit to mankind, that can be conclusively PROVEN.

With the Is/Ought dichotomy, I have already told you that in order for philosophies to be ethical propositions, it must be based on why it was created; the now.

There is no factuality in speculation. You telling me, that without the concept of philosophy, the result would be war?

That without the ability to reason with someone else, yes. If you cannot rationalize to other men the issues of the world and of issues of your backyard, the arbitrary takes over and you have men who escalate their own personal involvement in the subject.

So the study of philosophy on a college university level, prevents war? I thought I had a god complex, but jesus h christ.

And for the people that actually create, build and destroy things?

Generalization, you are discussing the humanities, you are asking for results of philosophy, I'm telling you there are none, because the peopel out there are as

I'm willing to be proven wrong, only i'm failing to see anything worthwhile, perhaps cos you are failing to break things down to my level. Whilst i'm not the most stupid person in the world, i dont understand philosophy speak.

You have yet to answer the question, what could the study of philosophy at university level, learning dead mans words, achieve for mankind NOW.

stubborn as you. Only they have a deeper presumption preset by something else to tell them it doesn't work. Not reasonable explanations given; "That's just how it is".

Religion IS a philosophy!

Indeed it is. That is why I labelled philosophy "evolutionary ideals vs religious ideals" for that particular comparison, I did not negate it's stance as a philosophy, only an arrogant and close circuit one.

people ignore philosophy because it cant come up with any more definite answer than "this is the way things are".

The first philosophy defines is how things are, the next thing they do is explain how they ought to be, but in the case of Nihilism and Surrealism, they say that everything as it is and how it becames is all that it will be, you will be unhappy and die, but it doesn't matter, because we don't exist.

OK, i get you, but as you might have guessed, the theme of this and all of my posts in this topic is : WHAT CAN THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AT UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE ACHIEVE IN THE MODERN WORLD. or is it a secret?

And you're trying to sucker in which demographic here?

Specific people as myself, no statistical information, just things I know for a fact; there is going to be one or two people out of a thousand who question.

EVERYONE questions something. What kind of question are you on about? Or you just trying to look sharp, cool, and mysterious for the internet community here.

as much as i love your arguments and debating you have both gone off the path of what this thread is about, i reccommend you both take a step back and get back on track to what this thread was supposed to be. a philosophy thread, in where by we discuss philosphoical questions i.e which came first? the chicken or the egg?

anyways i'll try to steer this in the right direction with something i've always thought about, excuse the way i go about this as i aint a philosopher so i don't know the correct terminology. here goes......

I believe my life to have a map, from the day i ws born i have been following a path that has already been laid out for me. Though there is some deviation on this path, what i call key choices, where you're faced with a cross roads where you look at one direction that an action will lead you as opposed to another. compare it to a tree, you start at the base, the trunk and it grows up in one direction until it reaches a certain age then it starts to branch out, in different directions, some intertwine whilst others stand out and others die. I don't believe that we have total control over our lives and that whaterver course ofaction one takes it has repurcussions for the rest of your life.

for example you meet a girl, who youreally like, one choice is to hook up with her, the other isn't. you decide not to hook up,thats action will echo throughout your life, but what if that action was already determined by a prior action? im struggling here to contextualise this well. anyways, discuss as best youcan.

This is starting to cross over, where science meets philosophy, this is what i call metahphysics, tho i'm probably wrong.

See, is the universe as we perceive it, or are we ENTIRELY wrong, and both the concepts of predestined course and freedom of action exist. Sure its paradoxical, meaning that by our understanding both answers are mutually exclusive.

I dont think an understanding and right answer to any of the greater questions can be put into human words. You either reach understanding or you dont. To understand that you can never understand the universe whilst alive is a good start, tho paradoxically, it may be wrong.

And, no pitters, this isnt about personal gripes, this is about me having no idea why philosophy is so respected today, and if the answers what i think it is, i really dont like it.

As far as i'm concerned, philosophy doesnt deserve money and time put into it, since all of the thinking about where we should go has already been done, what use is studying dead mens texts? oh yeah, and the occasional womans if there were ever any of note.

Science fiction and futuristic action movies have more relevance and education, for cheaper than philosophy can do. And they provide more laughs too.

inally, something of relevance and use. But still, what can the academic study of philosophy achieve today. Just where is it relevant for pushing mankind into a better life?

Educational systems only go as far as teaching to attain knowledge, but as far as teaching philosophy itself, all colleges teach their own ideals, including religious ones, so I think you can imagine the mess it makes. It is part of man's journey to determine which philosophies he finds most relevant in his life.

You'll find that it's another religious ideal and institution that things are gauged based on society and it's progress. Most people pretend that they're happy when they're not, making it unreliable. If we he was purely happy, he wouldn't be afraid to give you complex reasons.

The morality of each man must be taken independantly and selfishly, only then will you see a kind of happy society, not a guilty one.

Fiction = made up storys
History = written by the winners, rulers, and governments.

Indeed.

so the main achievement of philosophy, is people that spurn it and regard it as worthless to study? If a form of thinking could be said to be alive, this one is suicidal.

What do you mean?

Why should I, people who study philosophy always like to think they are better than people who dont, even if they dont talk about it.

Well, let's see the criteria:
You're debating philosophy without knowledge of what it is or it's proper uses, with a student of philosophy. And what does it look like for someone to talk about something they don't know about? Pretty embarrassing if you ask me.

Please show me an example of these "concretized facts" that philosophy bases itself on, the speculation based on it, and the factual benefit to mankind, that can be conclusively PROVEN.

Philosophy isn't one giant clumped orgy, there are hundreds of philosophies independant of eachother in explaining the world, you'll have to bring a philosophy to me first, and I can find their concretized facts through it's fundementals.

Some philosophies advocate destruction of man, and some advocate the power of man. These philosophies are accepted based on his sense of life, that is, how he says the world before he decides to question it.

So the study of philosophy on a college university level, prevents war? I thought I had a god complex, but jesus h christ.

Did I say philosophy?

Or did I say rationality? Rationality is a devise to the best philosophies.

You cannot deny that a discussion between groups the equal to a flamewar will have the structure and rationality to keep them from their throats, or to further segregate themselves.

"John, I have no reasons to tell you you're wrong, you're just wrong because I think you're a faggot."
"Bill, your wifes a whore, a big one. That's how you're wrong."

I'm willing to be proven wrong, only i'm failing to see anything worthwhile

You have yet to answer the question, what could the study of philosophy at university level, learning dead mans words, achieve for mankind NOW.

WHAT CAN THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AT UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE ACHIEVE IN THE MODERN WORLD

Answered above.

EVERYONE questions something.

They question and question and question, but the way most society brings up their kin is almost entirely away from philosophy; they're left to answer their own angsty questions, the most popular one is: "Believe in yourself, believe in who are you."

ok erkie you've made your point.

Now you and spamwarrior shut up or more this to AIM of the pm's and let actual debate about actual philosophies continue.. not the pholosophy of philosophy itself - thats just ridiculous and at this point your seeming hatred towards each other will cause both your useless bantering to continue for all eternity - because really neither of you are making any grounds over each other - whether it being your inability to make the other see things from your poinf of view or your inability to understand the other's point of view.

now I heard someone say that they think their life is predetermined but there are choises to make - its fate - but you do have choices - so you do have a bit of leeway.

think of it this way - in the past there were oracles - who could apparently predict the future - problem is - they COULDNT predict the future - at best they could predict "A" future - because hell we all know that if someone says "you're gonna die" you might actually change your course of events in your life and

a) either change fate or

b) be set on a course of events triggered by the oracle's message that actually makes you die when they say you will - all because they told you to - when in reality if they had just shut up you most likely would have been fine.

or it might even be that some higher power" lets say "god" for this instance regardless of whether you believe in a god just homour me on this one - knows you personality so well that he knows what choices you WILL make - based on your personality - he might send an "angel" lets say to steer you along - he might know that if you are told something you will follow that path - or you might do the reverse of what they say because you don't believe fate to be concrete - thus inspiring yourself to make the right decisions - or a giant course set up in your life interwoven with other people's fates might change you for the better - or the worse.

my advice is to just live your life - noone knows if fate is real or not and all your choices might have already been made for you - the point is to do what you think is right - as long as you do that you will be fine.

because really neither of you are making any grounds over each other

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I pour my soul into these responses and I'm seeing lot of budging from spamwarrior.

I have no problem moving this discussion somewhere else but I'm getting pretty god damn tired of people saying shit like this.

sorry erkie its just you're not really getting much across - I appreciate you are a philosophy major but in a real debate both sides know what they are talking about - this just isnt happening here. And I really did make this thread for people to discuss their ideas - not argue amongst each other why they are wrong.

At 8/15/06 12:49 PM, Erkie wrote:

inally, something of relevance and use. But still, what can the academic study of philosophy achieve today. Just where is it relevant for pushing mankind into a better life?

Educational systems only go as far as teaching to attain knowledge, but as far as teaching philosophy itself, all colleges teach their own ideals, including religious ones, so I think you can imagine the mess it makes. It is part of man's journey to determine which philosophies he finds most relevant in his life.

You'll find that it's another religious ideal and institution that things are gauged based on society and it's progress. Most people pretend that they're happy when they're not, making it unreliable. If we he was purely happy, he wouldn't be afraid to give you complex reasons.

BUT WHAT HAS THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY ACTUALLY ACHIEVED.

The morality of each man must be taken independantly and selfishly, only then will you see a kind of happy society, not a guilty one.

BUT WHAT, HAS, THE, ACADEMIC, STUDY, OF PHILOSOPHY, ACHIEVED FOR MANKIND IN RECENT YEARS.

Fiction = made up storys
History = written by the winners, rulers, and governments.

Indeed.

ergo, history = fiction

so the main achievement of philosophy, is people that spurn it and regard it as worthless to study? If a form of thinking could be said to be alive, this one is suicidal.

What do you mean?

you said philosophys achievement is, it creates people "like you", meaning me.

Why should I, people who study philosophy always like to think they are better than people who dont, even if they dont talk about it.

Well, let's see the criteria:
You're debating philosophy without knowledge of what it is or it's proper uses, with a student of philosophy. And what does it look like for someone to talk about something they don't know about? Pretty embarrassing if you ask me.

oh i see, this quest for knowledge and thinking you so dearly love, is embarassing. well arent i a brave little soldier for trying to learn something then.

Please show me an example of these "concretized facts" that philosophy bases itself on, the speculation based on it, and the factual benefit to mankind, that can be conclusively PROVEN.

Philosophy isn't one giant clumped orgy, there are hundreds of philosophies independant of eachother in explaining the world, you'll have to bring a philosophy to me first, and I can find their concretized facts through it's fundementals.

so, philosophy, AS A WHOLE, never mind the academic study, cannot give us anything conclusive to work with?

Some philosophies advocate destruction of man, and some advocate the power of man. These philosophies are accepted based on his sense of life, that is, how he says the world before he decides to question it.

STUDY ACADEMIC, ACHIEVED, WHAT, HAS, FOR MANKIND, THE, OF.

So the study of philosophy on a college university level, prevents war? I thought I had a god complex, but jesus h christ.

Did I say philosophy?

it was the implication of why philosophy is so almighty, powerful and worthwhile.

Or did I say rationality? Rationality is a devise to the best philosophies.

You cannot deny that a discussion between groups the equal to a flamewar will have the structure and rationality to keep them from their throats, or to further segregate themselves.

"John, I have no reasons to tell you you're wrong, you're just wrong because I think you're a faggot."
"Bill, your wifes a whore, a big one. That's how you're wrong."

I'm willing to be proven wrong, only i'm failing to see anything worthwhile

You have yet to answer the question, what could the study of philosophy at university level, learning dead mans words, achieve for mankind NOW.

WHAT CAN THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AT UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE ACHIEVE IN THE MODERN WORLD

Answered above.

not at all. COMMON SENSE is something that prevents war, as is clearly demonstrated by this word equation

2x angry groups of people MINUS common sense EQUALS violence.

fact is, anyone who's got siblings can learn that peace and respect are worthwhile aims, cos they prevent personal and physical pain.

EVERYONE questions something.

They question and question and question, but the way most society brings up their kin is almost entirely away from philosophy; they're left to answer their own angsty questions, the most popular one is: "Believe in yourself, believe in who are you."

university study of philosophy, cannot, in FACT, solve any of mankinds issues. All it does is give us some knowledge of how and why people act, but as to the solution? nothing concrete, none of these "concretized facts" that you like and refer to.

so, yet again,

WHAT CAN THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY ACHIEVE FOR MANKIND IN THE MODERN WORLD.

It cant be preventing violence, as after all, war in the middle east = because of people studying philosophies and history.

MAIN COUNTER FOR THOSE THAT HAVE NO PATIENCE:

Keeping peace between people in a country? Thats socialisation, being brought up correctly. I've yet to see a small child study philosophy at university level, and learn the appropriate ways to behave from that.

SO WHAT HAS, MANKIND, STUDY, THE, OF, ACADEMIC, PHILOSOPHY. ACHIEVED, FOR.

spamwarrior STFU and move on.

my thread - my rules.

At 8/15/06 01:49 PM, Chronamut wrote: ok erkie you've made your point.

Now you and spamwarrior shut up or more this to AIM of the pm's and let actual debate about actual philosophies continue.. not the pholosophy of philosophy itself - thats just ridiculous and at this point your seeming hatred towards each other will cause both your useless bantering to continue for all eternity - because really neither of you are making any grounds over each other - whether it being your inability to make the other see things from your poinf of view or your inability to understand the other's point of view.

oh i see, cos i'm not playing by your rules, you dont like it anymore, and therefore my comments shouldnt exist.

saying debating the philosophy of philosophy is like saying that scientists shouldnt play with chemicals and study plants anymore. Its as valid a topic as anything else for a philosophy topic.

Also, i'd take it to private messaging, but i couldnt be bothered to "debate" with erkie in private, mainly cos i want other people to put their views in.

now I heard someone say that they think their life is predetermined but there are choises to make - its fate - but you do have choices - so you do have a bit of leeway.

think of it this way - in the past there were oracles - who could apparently predict the future - problem is - they COULDNT predict the future - at best they could predict "A" future - because hell we all know that if someone says "you're gonna die" you might actually change your course of events in your life and

a) either change fate or

b) be set on a course of events triggered by the oracle's message that actually makes you die when they say you will - all because they told you to - when in reality if they had just shut up you most likely would have been fine.

or it might even be that some higher power" lets say "god" for this instance regardless of whether you believe in a god just homour me on this one - knows you personality so well that he knows what choices you WILL make - based on your personality - he might send an "angel" lets say to steer you along - he might know that if you are told something you will follow that path - or you might do the reverse of what they say because you don't believe fate to be concrete - thus inspiring yourself to make the right decisions - or a giant course set up in your life interwoven with other people's fates might change you for the better - or the worse.

my advice is to just live your life - noone knows if fate is real or not and all your choices might have already been made for you - the point is to do what you think is right - as long as you do that you will be fine.

thats a nice piece of writing and advice, but what if what "you" feel is right involves going out and on the streets and fighting with people you dont know, not even for a purpose, not even for laughs, it just happens?

At 8/15/06 01:52 PM, Erkie wrote:

because really neither of you are making any grounds over each other

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I pour my soul into these responses and I'm seeing lot of budging from spamwarrior.

I'm not budging at all, so i really dont know what you mean.

I have no problem moving this discussion somewhere else but I'm getting pretty god damn tired of people saying shit like this.

OH NOES, ARE YOU GOING TO CRY COS I DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWPOINT. GONNA STAB ME TO DEATH WITH YOUR PEN?

fuck what you think, i have issues with moving this discussion somewhere else. I'd say this is a topic that shouldnt be hidden behind closed doors, it should be there if people want to read it, not hidden away.

just answer, what has the academic philosophy achieved for mankind in the past 100 or so years? i mean, even I can think of a possible answer, and i'm against the subject for fucks sake!

At 8/15/06 03:37 PM, Chronamut wrote: spamwarrior STFU and move on.

my thread - my rules.

erm, no, cos you're being a fascist tbh. IN your own interests do not bother replying or trying to fuck with me on this topic, specially when i'm actually being on topic and not particularly personal or rude, or it'll end up in a pointless flamewar that'll just get locked, and then your thread will have died an ignominious death.

hmm, i have a phillosophy to live life by: spam warrior has the intelligence of a pubic hair, so just be glad youre not his metally retarded self.

I dont see how it matters as once again you have totally hijacked a thread and scared everyone away from posting in it - if this thread gets locked so be it - its already dead.

Hey,Chrony,i know i don't have to say anything about that,but even if they are flamings,this shall not stop you,Erkie,or some other intelligent people to keep discuss their ideas.Let them argue with their love story and show you WANT to keep up this thread.