Aren't all philosophical topics anthropocentric? — Skalidris
Stiil, I can't see any considerable philosophical intuition or experience required to see what these questions have in common.I'm just trying to understand the intuition behind philosophical concepts. — Skalidris
I'm not expecting an academic answer..... — Skalidris
to me they all lead to the same problem once they're debated.... — Skalidris
Are humans selfish?
Are sciences objective? Is philosophy subjective?
Does free will exist or is it an illusion? — Skalidris
Are humans selfish?
Are sciences objective? Is philosophy subjective?
Does free will exist or is it an illusion? — Skalidris
Components of philosophy that are missing:
4. Logic — Agent Smith
By stipulating “philosophical research” sufficient to answer the questions, isn’t an academic answer implied? — Mww
Those “a little bit interested” can offer opinion. Is that enough? — Mww
These questions seem to be looking for answers/certainty founded on some kind of metaphysical objectivity, which as far as I am aware is not possible — Tom Storm
They read like exam questions. Vague and general, to give candidates the challenge of clarifying and explaining. — Cuthbert
Yes, how does it lack logic? What makes these questions illogical? — Skalidris
......don't you think they would mislead the students — Skalidris
What evidence do we have to demonstrate that humans are selfish? I still think the question emerges from an illogical reasoning in the first place. — Skalidris
"Are humans big in size?" — Skalidris
Are humans big in size? — Skalidris
mentally, we top the list — Agent Smith
Maybe so. But that makes it paradoxical that the planet would be in a better state for life if we'd left the decisions to the less intelligent creatures. — Cuthbert
You're going to have to spell out what you're thinking, because to me these just look like a handful of unrelated questions. — Moliere
Physically, we're somewhere at the bottom; mentally, we top the list. — Agent Smith
Wait...What? You're actually debating it? It's ironic, right? — Skalidris
But still you allow that Simmias does not really exceed Socrates, as the words may seem to imply, because he is Simmias, but by reason of the size which he has; just as Simmias does not exceed Socrates because he is Simmias, any more than because Socrates is Socrates, but because he has smallness when compared with the greatness of Simmias?
....
And if Phaedo exceeds him in size, this is not because Phaedo is Phaedo, but because Phaedo has greatness relatively to Simmias, who is comparatively smaller?
.....
And therefore Simmias is said to be great, and is also said to be small, because he is in a mean between them, exceeding the smallness of the one by his greatness, and allowing the greatness of the other to exceed his smallness. He added, laughing, I am speaking like a book, but I believe that what I am saying is true.
......
I speak as I do because I want you to agree with me in thinking, not only that absolute greatness will never be great and also small, but that greatness in us or in the concrete will never admit the small or admit of being exceeded: instead of this, one of two things will happen, either the greater will fly or retire before the opposite, which is the less, or at the approach of the less has already ceased to exist; but will not, if allowing or admitting of smallness, be changed by that; even as I, having received and admitted smallness when compared with Simmias, remain just as I was, and am the same small person. And as the idea of greatness cannot condescend ever to be or become small, in like manner the smallness in us cannot be or become great; nor can any other opposite which remains the same ever be or become its own opposite, but either passes away or perishes in the change. — Plato, Phaedo 102b etc
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.