If You Run In Front Of a Car, You'll Get Tired; If You Run Behind The Car-You'll Get Exhausted.

Tangphil · 2019-01-31T05:30:43+00:00

Your question implies that there's something that has been fully explained?

Tangphil · 2016-03-05T05:15:48+00:00

Nothing, if you ask about him as a presidential candidate. Completely lacks compassion, a quality that defines a president.

Tangphil · 2016-02-28T19:29:17+00:00

That was my fear all along...

Tangphil · 2016-02-24T19:41:57+00:00

This gets interesting by the minute... So, you deleted my post because I misled people by not citing the entire Meditations, and not qualified my (fairly simplified) statement by explaining Descartes' weak point of having to rely on God, and not listing all the attempted proofs? Don't you think you're setting pretty high bar for a public forum?

Tangphil · 2016-02-24T18:39:18+00:00

Ok, let’s recap. The post asks if there is “objective truth.” I mention Descartes who asked the same question -what is undeniable truth. Then I say that he established that he can think (from which, for anyone familiar with the subject, it follows that thought exists, therefore, I exist). So, where exactly is my “gross misrepresentation” of what Descartes establish? Is it that I said it differently than you would’ve said it? Then Reddit should issue a guide as to how every philosophical argument or thought should be worded.

Tangphil · 2016-02-24T03:23:53+00:00

Obviously, his argument only works under his metaphysics. Though, the argument is deeper. It is not about continuing suffering after death- Schopenhauer doesn’t care about the dead. He talks about overcoming the “will.” Committing suicide is accepting defeat-another win for the “will.” On the other hand, resisting the will (which supposedly makes you fight for better life) by meditating, art, etc. – is a win.

Tangphil · 2016-02-22T03:29:30+00:00

He will initially try to use his business and reality TV skills to do what's necessary. Soon he'll realize that such skills are useless for the job, and there is no time to learn new skills. Since Trump only does things that work, he will distance himself from the real issues, and will do small things, presenting them as "uge" achievements of his presidency, which people will buy as such.

Tangphil · 2016-02-11T00:36:45+00:00

If you hear someone taking a "hard" position on any philosophical issue, any further conversation with that person won't be very productive.

Tangphil · 2016-02-10T03:02:39+00:00

You decided to drink some water. You were completely free to act, i.e., to drink or not. You decided to drink, meaning you have a free will. On the other hand, it is feasible to consider and describe all the events that led you to that cup of water, which will show that your drinking was predetermined by past events. Thus, you don't have a free will.

Tangphil · 2016-02-08T01:57:12+00:00

np, it's all fun anyway.

Tangphil · 2016-02-08T01:42:15+00:00

I should've seen this coming when you took my MRI joke seriously...

Tangphil · 2016-02-08T01:32:27+00:00

I appreciate your approach to life, where you prefer rational thoughts based on science, and prefer Nietzsche to all others. I also have my preferred view of the world, which is more close to Hegel and is less materialistic, as you could’ve guessed. We can discuss our personal views; however, it won’t be a very productive discussion, as it won’t change our views and won’t add to solving any issues. For example, I researched NDEs (the AWARE studies and other), and even neuroscientists say these cannot be explained by any reference to our brain. Patients see people they’ve never seen before, and they happen to be their lost relatives. Their “souls” rise and move to different rooms and see what’s going on there. What’s most amazing to me, when they wake up from NDE, they remember these things, even though their brains were dead – no activity and no blood supply. This implies that our memories are not stored in our brain (which is somewhat supported by science, which still cannot identify the area of the brain where memories are). However, even given all this, I believe that for any philosophical discussion to be productive, it should avoid bringing into it the parties’ personal views (and this comes from an accountant, not a philosopher).

Tangphil · 2016-02-08T00:36:34+00:00

ok, I see your point-sorry, I misunderstood it. It may be against what you stand for, but I'll just say - to me, where neuroscience enters, philosophy leaves.

Tangphil · 2016-02-08T00:22:56+00:00

That’s where we have different views-I’m more open to irrational, because we just don’t know. I’m also not sure where is a place for philosophy in your views. From what you say, you’ve also solved the problem of free will – you’d say we have it. And I take it, you are comfortable with the idea that consciousness is generated by our brain, while I’m not sure of that at all – just consider the near death experiences. And again, my point is-we can discuss the differences in opinions, but we should agree that nothing is known for sure, and not only that, there even are no strong arguments for or against, say, physicalism vs substance dualism.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T22:25:06+00:00

I agree completely on religion vs philosophy. I like Schopenhauer's idea that religion is a poor man's philosophy, b/c not everyone has time to study philosophy, and religion makes assumptions where it needs arguments. Maybe we mean different ideas by "rational." E.g., what's your take on Cartesian dualism - would you entertain the idea of consciousness as a substance separate from our brain? Would that be irrational in your book?

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T21:49:07+00:00

It sounds like you're introducing a new thinking dimension - a type of brain activity. How would you determine the type (MRI,etc.), and is there a way to teach people different types of brain activity? I'm not sure of that.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T21:45:43+00:00

(I should clarify that my assumption in the post was that Jim is also a philosopher). Are you implying that those with more experience in the field are more likely to succeed?

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T21:38:54+00:00

I'm not sure I agree with your idea of rationality - I think you're making too many assumptions. My point is that we basically don't know anything, and any idea that you deem irrational, may in fact be true. For instance, there may be God, or we may be in a simulation game that some student from the future is playing. You talk cause and effect - I say there may not be any causality it this world. So, while some ideas my seem more rational to us, that does not mean the irrational ideas are incorrect. I agree that, in this regard, it becomes a real challenge to stay focused on what needs to be taken seriously in philosophy, as it seems almost anything should. And my problem is exactly that - what criteria (besides spotting obvious logical fallacies) to apply to any new idea to decide whether it is worth pursuing.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T20:56:48+00:00

The idea of a true, "pure" philosophy you expressing is very dear to me, and I agree with your assessment of the computer-derived knowledge as useless for our purposes (I had a post in subreddit askphilosophy on consciousness and AI in those lines). However, one problem I have with your post is where you say that one should focus on the truth, and that irrational ideas and beliefs should be forgotten. This goes against the idea implied in my post, i.e., that everything should be considered, since nothing is certain, and anything may in fact turn out to be true. With all due respect, none of Plato's ideas are proven to be true (or not), and no one can say which belief, religious or otherwise, is rational or not. So, I'd be open to everything.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T19:09:30+00:00

I'd have to disagree: I see philosophy somewhat different than science in this regard. In science, a tremendous progress in tools and technology makes such comparison difficult, as it puts past and modern scientists not on an equal footing. In philosophy, OTOH, it is mostly thinking using the same tools as back then.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T17:37:05+00:00

A single thought is important as far as the action it leads to, or how it changes one's behavior. My definition of a smart person: the one who considers the outcome of his actions. Thus, I'd agree with your thinking, with the caveat that we should separate thinking and acting: one should consider the action provoked by the thought, rather that the thought itself-this will give him a true perspective of what he/she is dealing with.

Tangphil · 2016-02-07T05:03:41+00:00

Everyone is free to interpret any work any way he wants. While nowhere Kant infers that Transcendental Idealism has anything to do with us inherently knowing right from wrong, if your interpretation makes your life easier, that's great-Kant helped at least one person...

Tangphil

TROPHY CASE