• Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    I post here, don't I? — Terrapin Station



    I already said that.
  • Most of us provide no major contributions...
    ↪schopenhauer1


    You are trying to define the value of life relative to its contrition to society.
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    ↪anonymous66


    I am not even sure philosophers know what philosophy is, I mean I have a very focused idea of what it is, but I am sure we had a few threads in the past forums about it that never reached any solid conclusion.

    I have always found Plato to be very accessible. I find that many religious people can relate to Soren Kierkegaard. Poets tend to be adapt at comprehending most abstract thoughts. Anyone in the fields of science you can always talk about the philosophy of science with. You just need to find a common ground as a starting point.

    Dostoevsky is a great source of philosophical literature, really all those existentialist writers are.

    Here is a short easy read if you have the time:

    http://opie.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/stories/death-of-ivan-ilych.pdf
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    ↪anonymous66


    Albert Camus is clearly the most prominent figure that comes to mind. His ability to put philosophy into an easily digestible format is a skill to envy by both philosophers and writers.

    If you really want to know how to effectively communicate philosophical concepts I would suggest you explore literature and poetry. Writing is very much connected to philosophy. These people explore philosophical concepts, but in a manner much different than philosophers do.
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    ↪anonymous66


    My suggestion is that the problem is most likely a communication barrier.
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    The one thing my education taught me is that philosophy is everywhere. I know some like to think it is an exclusive club, but it has spread into most academic disciplines. So you can find common ground with just about anyone who takes personal education seriously.
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    ↪anonymous66

    Relax it was a joke.
  • Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?
    "Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?"

    I post on these forums don't I?

    I know that is horrible, but the set up was too good to resist.
  • Most of us provide no major contributions...
    Also this brings up the idea that we do not need to progress humanity. What for? Why are we pumping more units of people out there? So Jeremiah can be on a philosophy forum and comment? So you can really "do" something? Why create the "do something" in the first place? Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick. — schopenhauer1

    If you can't find meaning and purpose in your life unless you become some great historical figure then that is a problem with your ego.
  • Don't you hate it. . .
    I have been sleeping on the floor that last few nights, and it has seemed to help. I think my back gets stressed by sleeping on a mattress, which may be the reason I have problems sleeping sometimes. Sleeping on the floor gives my back firm support and the rest it needs. After a few days of sleeping on the floor my back feels great.
  • Don't you hate it. . .
    I don't like using any type of chemical sleeping aids. I always wake up feeling tried and with a headache. I don't know if my sleep cycles exactly fit the standard 7 - 8 hours, as I sleep for about five hours a night. Five hours is just right for me, and I think sleeping aids make me oversleep.
  • Talent vs Passion and Work
    Passion is the motivation itself, and dedication, hard work and perseverance are far more important than innate talent.

    It is odd that you mention Beethoven and Mozart. As I understand it Beethoven had to work very hard to write his music, while it came much more easily to Mozart.
  • Most of us provide no major contributions...
    I think someone is dealing with feelings of inadequacy.
  • Is everything futile?
    As pointed out a number of times it depends on what you are talking about.
  • the limits of science.
    Science like religion requires a great deal of faith. — MJA

    Science uses empirical evidence with relational methodology, and you can try to debase that with subjectivity all you want, but it is still far more credible than what religion is offering.
  • the limits of science.
    Science, by its very definition, is radically limited in its scope of authority. — taylordonbarrett

    That is what makes Science so great, it recognizes limits.

    Religion/philosophy on the other hand, have very few limits and any yahoo can make up almost any silly nonsense they want and declare it true.

    Limits are not a bad things, and only once we recognize our limits can we move past them.
  • Judgment
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Right. . . . because there is no clear advantage to being well informed.

    At this point I have to believe you are just being stubborn.
  • Judgment
    Now, how much more likely are good decisions based on good information, when we are paying attention and when we are trying to make a good decision? — Bitter Crank

    Well, when you ask "how much" we would be getting into a quantitative measurement of probability, which I would need some data to to figure out. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility to reasonably figure out, but it is beyond my resources.
  • Judgment
    Jerry, would you mind responding to my post? — Bitter Crank

    Well, for the premise of the OP we don't need to worry about a) as we are assuming one believes what is true and one believe what is not true.

    As for b) once again I have to point out we are talking about what is more likely.

    Simply because you have ascertained the truth of something, that does not mean you will necessarily make a good judgement call or even be able to find a good solution. But your judgment is likely to be better than if you don't understand the truth, or if you believed something other than the truth.

    Personally I believe truth and good decisions are linked, and it is one of the reasons I strive so hard to be as accurate as I can. Is it possible for me to reach a poor conclusion while being well informed? Yes, but I am far more likely to reach a poor conclusion when I am poorly informed, or when I believe what is not true.
  • Judgment
    If it's some major decision--career, where to live, whether/who to marry, etc., sure. I prefer to be informed about the aspects that are important to me. — Terrapin Station

    And for these decisions why do you prefer to be informed?
  • Judgment
    Peer pressure, politics etc. might increase the likelihood that people make judgements based on false beliefs (or opportunism regardless of the belief). — jkop

    All other variables are being held at a constant and/or are equal.
  • Judgment
    I don't believe there's any plausible way to estimate likelihood for this — Terrapin Station

    Do you think it is important to be well informed before you make a decision?
  • Judgment
    ↪Terrapin Station


    That is a possibility, but the question is what is more likely to happen.
  • Judgment
    Not enough information in my opinion. There are way too many variables that factor into this. — Terrapin Station

    All other variables are being held at a constant and/or are equal.

    People always want to add context that simply is not there, but what you need to keep in mind is that this is not an end all be all statement about truth, and I am not asking what is always the case but what is more likely to happen.

    It seems like such a simple question, but you get a lot of different reactions from people. I typically get about a half and half response to this question, half of the people see it clear as day, while the other half have problems accepting it.
  • Don't you hate it. . .
    I can't sleep with music on, it is far to distracting. Sometimes sleeping on the floor helps, but sometimes it is just a struggle to go to sleep.
  • Judgment
    Since the answer would seem to be obvious (Someone who believes what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs) and since there would be little point in asking a question with a very obvious answer, I assume there is something lurking that is not obvious. — Bitter Crank

    There is nothing lurking, and that is the issue. It is a simple straight forward truth that is too often over looked because we work hard to convince ourselves there are no consequence to being wrong.

    Ceteris paribus, people make bad judgement calls all the time regardless of what they know for sure, and whether what they know is true or not sure. — Bitter Crank

    That is why it says "more likely."
  • One-consciousness universe
    ↪Babbeus


    I am aware you think that this is the case, but you have added additional response variables to your explanatory variable.

    Let me break it down step by step

    This is your explanatory, it is what you are saying explains the other variables:

    A= one electron universe

    These are your responses, what is being explained by the one electron universe:

    B= multiple identical electrons could just be several occurrence of the same electron traveling in time and space and interacting with itself.

    C= several completely separate consciousnesses but they could be all occurrences of the same consciousness interacting with itself.

    See you have added another variable, by saying A explains C. There is no justification for adding C.
  • Decisions we have to make
    Let's review — aletheist

    Yes let's do.

    If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah

    I am not gonna sit here and debate nonsense with you all day.
  • Decisions we have to make
    I think this more than proves my point, keep dragging it to abstraction until the argument makes no sense at all, and does not apply to the original debate.
  • Decisions we have to make
    I can see aletheist the only way you know how to debate is to drag things out of context.

    No, you already set m=-1; — aletheist
  • Decisions we have to make
    No, you already set m=-1; so if a-b=0, then x=0/0 (undefined) — aletheist

    That is not what I said, I said if a-b = 0, not if a-b = 0 and m+1 = 0.
  • Decisions we have to make
    If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah
  • Decisions we have to make
    Then a=b, while x and y are any two numbers that add up to a (or b). — aletheist

    That does not follow. if a-b =0 then x = 0 in x=(a-b)/(m+1)
  • Decisions we have to make
    If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah
  • Decisions we have to make
    If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all.
  • Decisions we have to make
    Everything in my last post is undeniably true — aletheist

    If you were trying to prove you can move undefined variables around, I suppose so.

    x=(a-b)/(m+1) — aletheist

    m= -1

    Who said anything about measuring? — aletheist

    I did.
  • Decisions we have to make
    ↪aletheist


    I am sorry but that is not so, if that was, then we'd have one equation to measure every thing.

    You are trying to drag the argument in to such abstraction it holds no more meaning.
  • Decisions we have to make
    I will note that Cavacava actually defined his variables, which was nice.
  • Decisions we have to make
    If I said y=mx+b is a rational equation for what we what to measure, there is no way to validate that until I define the variables.
  • Decisions we have to make
    Given that if A then B, and I believe A, then it is rational for me to believe B; in fact, it would be irrational for me not to believe B. — aletheist

    This means nothing if A and B are not defined. Just like x + y = a means nothing until it is defined. As I said, "What I am seeing are attempts to limit the argument to very narrow confines in order to make it appear more rational."
Home » Jeremiah