HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Philosophical Investigations, Do you think about thinking?
love_me_destroye...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:33 PM
Post #16


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 879
Joined: 15-November 04
From: Generica
Member No.: 2,394



hmm I actually live by a philosophy. and tend to do a lot of thinking about this stuff. *everyone else laughs*


--------------------
user posted imageCocktail, anyone?


user posted image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:37 PM
Post #17


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



that is very true and you made many strong points on the philosophical point and i totally agree, but i was going more for the theological point. How could we not truly be here but in some alternate state of being or as you have said in a state of nothingness being tricked by god to think we are in a physical world. Thats almost the same as the matrix theory except were not being harvested for heat or being controled by machines. If that is true then what if our purpose for existence. As Solomn once concluded all toil in under the sun. Even though that being proven as ambiguous statement because it has been said that solomn never expierienced "true love" it still throws up the thought there is no purpose for us here on earth. My ap theology teacher tries to tell us that god created us to give him praise and glory. What kind of God would submit his creations to such pain and suffering just so he could get his ego inflated. And thus I arrive back to the question that i always return to. What is our purpose. Then i take a glimps into the science relm at evolution. Maybe we just evolved. There was a small planet in space that had the right amount of chemicals to create living organisms that evolved into more and more advanced species. Thus us having no purpose what so ever. That is what goes on in my head and pretty much drives me crazy everyday.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
love_me_destroye...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:40 PM
Post #18


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 879
Joined: 15-November 04
From: Generica
Member No.: 2,394



most scientist agree that the point of the universe is to create an intelligent being that can talk about itself and its evolution. An observer, you might say.


--------------------
user posted imageCocktail, anyone?


user posted image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:42 PM
Post #19


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



But theres no reason for that. Why would the observer want that? Theres no real good or anything actually that could come out of that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
love_me_destroye...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:45 PM
Post #20


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 879
Joined: 15-November 04
From: Generica
Member No.: 2,394



No idea, sometimes very athiestic theories have holes in them.
btw, have you ever heard of a wave form generator?


--------------------
user posted imageCocktail, anyone?


user posted image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:47 PM
Post #21


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



but arche whats your take on my response?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 2 2005, 12:55 PM
Post #22


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



On a theological point, the purpose of life is to glorify God - Conservative Christian Theology. You are stumbling into the problem of evil, why would God create the world knowing that there would be evil.

To be honest, I don't usually poke around philosophy of religion too much, but I will say that there are a lot of possibilities here. One major option is that it doesn't matter what we think is good or evil, but whatever God considers good/evil matters. As the supreme being, God has the right to create us and not worry about our feelings. Since God does care about our feelings (evident in theological contexts if you believe that stuff smile.gif), God is merciful.

That's the depressing answer tongue.gif. In other words, whatever God wants goes because He's God and we're not.

To be honest, most issues about God end up becoming issues of theology rather than philosophy. Theology is concerned about the nature of God based on validating and following religious texts, customs and beliefs. Philosophy is more concerned with the nature of God based on reason itself (logical argumentation & empiricism).

I'd love to talk more detailed about this stuff, I'm just weak today - my daughter's driving me nuts and I'm trying to find some refuge (I know that's not very Hughesian, but I only aspire to be like him, I can't be Hughes:(). I'll try to do it more justice some other time. If you have questions about it or how other interpretations have been, I'd love to be forced to crack a book smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 12:58 PM
Post #23


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



No, i think you've quenched my thirst for it enough today. This was my first actually philosophical discussion and i must say i came out of it with alot more questions and answers than i had thought. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 2 2005, 01:04 PM
Post #24


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



More questions than answers? Good smile.gif. that's the way it goes.

I'm just not up to par on Philosophy of Religion. I've actually tried to avoid it for a while because of my frustrations with it and theology. My background is conservative Christian, but I'm by no means all that conservative anymore. I wish I could be, but there are too many problems I see that aren't reconciled or even attempted to be reconciled. Much of it has to do with how flaky theology can be. Theology often deals with cultural criticism and methods of applying ancient texts/rituals to modern times. It doesn't always follow decent reasoning and can sometimes resemble a bunch of long winded analysis of nothing - kinda like phenomenology & post modernism tongue.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 01:30 PM
Post #25


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



Yeah, i know what you mean, a couple of months ago i would start thinking about it and then just stop and try to stear clear of it because ignorance is bliss you know. I also was a conservative a while back but to many events have occured in which things aren't going to change for the better. And i totally agree with what you said about theology reasoning because currently where analyzing the gospel writers and interpreting what they mean by looking at the writers themsleves, who their audience was and what relegious backround they were. My theo teacher is making a couple good points and arguments but in the end im not learning anything at all. Its like we keep taking different paths but always ending up exactly where we started.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 2 2005, 01:35 PM
Post #26


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



What's happening is you have a hermeneutical style that's being taught to you that may or may not be fully known by the teacher. It all depends on whether you're taking a very exegetical view of the text, but of course there's the application issue in that how does a 2000 year old text still apply today?

Considering the Gospels were written in Greek to begin with, you first have to get over the translation issue. Some translations are better than others. On top of that, you've got textual criticism. Some translations use different text groups than others, which may color the overall meaning of passages. Then there's also the chunking methods you use. Do you use everything within a larger context or can a verse on its own have meaning? Does meaning change over time? Do applications of meaning actually fit the meaning to begin with?

Many questions to deal with in interpretation work and that's just the surface tongue.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 2 2005, 01:46 PM
Post #27


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



to answer you questions in order

Yes, every passage can have its own meaning

No, from what im being taught, or even what makes sense to me, the meaning does not change over time.

And we never really have an application of meaning, it just seems to be the lesson before the test, there never seems to be a big picture behind the teachings.

But my theology teacher handles the translations very well, because he follows the translation from greek and in some cases roman.

But i see what you mean about interpretations, and he has even told my class that he disagrees with the textbook we're using and will teach us something different. But i dont really care what he teaches me as long as i pass the class with high marks, because i can always do my own research and come up with my own interpretations onb the subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 07:44 AM
Post #28


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



You should take a look at a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament sometime. Half of the page is Greek New Testament, the other half is the textual apparatus for textual criticism. Looking at that taught me how hard it is to really translate things and maintain a texts authority.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prinz_Zoisit
post Jan 3 2005, 10:47 AM
Post #29


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,123
Joined: 30-May 04
From: World
Member No.: 30
Gender: Male



wow, i'm very interested in such things and in mathematical questions generally.. it's sooo weird some things and i'm always curious about learning something new about mathematics and the most trivial things with which mathematicians cope with^^

QUOTE
1. '2+2=4'
2. '2+2=2+2'


hmm.. i would say that both statements are right(plus! you can put both statements equal), but no. 1 is a statement of higher quality(if you know what to do with it). It may be clear that numbers(like 2 or 6) and operators(like + or -) which are defined by somebody can be stated equal by the sign = which means that something is equal to something and something is always equal to itself..
But you can only say that if you post a statement before, a so called axiom, which says that 1+1 is 2, calculations are true. And in the case of statement no. 2 you have to say that a(which is 2+2) is equal a(2+2 itself). And this thinking of humanity is correct i think, because our experience says that something is something itself. You could also define it otherwise if you want, but it's the most appealing statement of us to say that something is something itself.^^
BUT! You can also say that this statement no. 2 also means a+a=a+a. If you wouldn't know what this + means in this equation, you would say that a+a means a. But it is rational to say that a here is 2+2 because it has no meaning what is left or what is right because the operators and the numbers on both sides are the same and that always means that it's an equation!

In statement no. 1 another number(the 4) appears, which may be irritating for somebody who can only count until 2(in statement no. 2). You don't have to count until 3 to understand statement no. 2, but if you post the decimal system(i don't know if the decimal system counts as an axiom) as something which IS, you can understand this equation with help of the knowledge of the meaning of the operator +. With the number 4 in statement no. 1, you summarized and you shortened the form 2+2 in to one single number(4=2a). You could say that it's a secret script which everybody can understand[if you know the code for it(the operators)^^].
In statement no. 2 it's the same, but you can also understand this statement(that the left side is equal the right side) without the meaning of the operator, but in statement no. 1 at the first sight, you don't know if the left side (2+2 really is the same as the right side 4).

QUOTE
1. Snow is white or not white

#1 has the form p v ~p (v=or). This statement is always true in all possible worlds. So, any statement of the form p v ~p must always be true.


It's all about axioms. How do you know that this law exists in every world?

QUOTE
2. Snow is white and not white

#2 has the form p & ~p. This one is false in all possible worlds. So anything that takes this form must be false.


Answer me: Is the following statement right?
1. Everything which is matter has got no matter at the same time!

This one would be p & ~p as you said. Nobody ever would have believe that it could be two things(matter and no matter) at the same time(like snow couldn't be white and not white at the same time).
But for LIGHT this statement is TRUE!
It simply IS UNLOGICAL, but it IS TRUE!!!!!!!!
(That means that we only use and calculate in logics because it's more easier for us and not because it is THE truth)

QUOTE
Therefore, when someone earns a PhD, they have studied their subject to the highest extent, philosophically . It is why philosophy has historically been the queen of the sciences along with theology

QUOTE
Philosophy is more concerned with the nature of God based on reason itself (logical argumentation & empiricism).


Yes, i admire philosophy! *sigh

*moans* Ah, if only humanity would return to the times where the arts subjects(music, philosophy, logic, rhetorics, etc.) were celebrated in school!
But instead of this, subjects like Business seem to be more and more important.


It is "also" honorable to learn an art subject to "its highest extend"(what the todays most skilled philosophers(mathematicians, physicians, etc.) problems are).
Yes, philosophy is a very good subject which deals about life and the world and the sense of living itself which is of course honorable, but philosophers also spread doubts, which can also destroy the beliefs of people of any religion. But philosophers can also inspire the French Revolution for example, which is very positive.^^

As i already said: Light is matter and has at the same time no mass. Discovers like this physical discover automatically is ALSO philosophy, because it shows that logic does not always exist always and everywhere.

Physics gives the laws. Mathematics does the rest. Philosophy combines the results with the experience of humanity. But this all is only a very very very little piece of the truth..............


--------------------
IPB Image

"Two things fulfill my mind with always new and increasing admiration and reverence the more frequently and continuously i think about it busily:
the sky full of stars above me and the moral law inside of me..." (Immanuel Kant)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 12:07 PM
Post #30


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



Ah Prinz Zoisit, I am so pleased with your response. I'll do my best to comment, but please forgive me if I misunderstand something. You've given me a lot to think about here smile.gif.

Let's go back to those statements again:
1: 2+2=4
2: 2+2=2+2

I'm not capable of delving into the entire mathematical logic involved regarding all the symbols, but I wil discuss the problem of reference presented here. You show that the two statements are equal in one sense, but there is something else that makes the two statements different. I'm going to reduce the statements further, which you have mentioned a bit in your response.

1': a=b
2': a=a

I'm now showing that '2+2' is represented by 'a' and '4' is represented by 'b'. This allows us to look at any statement of the same structure. The 'a' could be the morning star and the 'b' could be the evening star (the two are actually the same item, but different names for it).

Statement 2' seems self evident and does not require any empirical evidence. A proposition 'a' is identical to proposition 'a'. It makes sense to say:

3: the morning star is the morning star

Now it is not necessarily evident that a statement of the structure shown in 1' is rationally knowable (known by virtue of it's syntactical structure). So there is some learning that takes place with statement 1' as opposed to statement 2'. Something must show that 'b' is in fact identical with 'a'.

So, the question becomse to what does 'b' refer? In the first example 'b' refers to '4', which is identical to '2+2' (assuming our basic understanding of decimal mathematics). On the other hand, the actual mark '4' is not identical with '2+2'. In other words, the scribble mark or sign of '4' is different than '2+2'. This means that the sign '4' may refer to something that has the same identity as '2+2' and vis versa.

In our second example, we have 'the morning star' and 'the evening star'. It is through empirical fact that we know the two stars are actually the same object with different names. So, when one says, 'the morning star' to what are they referring? If they are referring to the sign/symbol 'the morning star' then it is not identical with 'the evening star'.

There's so much more, but I feel I've bored you enough already tongue.gif. As you can see the only operator of importance is '=' once the statement is reduced. That operator is acting as 'identical to', which makes it interesting to say that 'a is identical to b'. The signs are not identical, but the nominatum (bedeutung using Frege's term) is the same.

Now to the concepts of 'p v ~p' and 'p & ~p'

In Classical logic there are three laws that are upheld. You can deny them if you want, but communication becomes even more difficult. The laws are:

The law of Identity: if any statemetn is true, then it is true
The law of contradiction: no statement can be both true and false
The law of excluded middle: any statement is either true or false

With these, we can begin studying the actual truth functions of the statemens of the form 'p v ~p'

p | ~p | p v ~p
T | F | T
F | T | T

Based on the law of contradiction, 'p' and its negation cannot both be true.
Based on the law of excluded middle, 'p' and its negation can only be true or false.

Again, all of this assumes the basic laws of logic. At any given point an assumption must be made/axiom. These can be challenged, but I personally don't want to challenge them as it would lead to more private reasoning, which means it would be very difficult to talk to one another.

1. Everything which is matter has got no matter at the same time

This is not a problem statement. The reference for the term 'matter' is not the same in both sides of the statement. In essense it is saying:

1' Everything is matter1 has got no matter2 at the same time.

There is a difference in what is being referred to with the term 'matter' on both sides, therefore it has a p & ~q sense rather than p & ~p. I don't have prepared the argument fully at this moment, but I can look up what I'm thinking about and post it a bit later. It's basically an issue with regards to the meaning of 'natural kind' terms. For instance, water was not always referred to as H2O.

There was a time when we didn't know it's atomic structure. Is there a difference between the water we refer to today than the water we referred to years ago? What if there was a substance XYZ that was called water and had all the same properties of water except the fact that it was chemically made of XYZ? If we ever become advanced enough to discover the difference, then there will be a difference in reference between the two. So, I would say that the meaning of 'matter' in the above statement is one that is not fully defined. Light itself is still a very unknown thing.

I'm sorry if this isn't very clear. I'm trying to tackle a lot in one post. I'll try to break it up later - perhaps after you find many flaws in what I've posted smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2016 - 07:22 PM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css