The "real world"

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Don't ya hate that feeling?

[warmunger]

Yup

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Yup

Well I'm certainly glad you agree.

[warmunger]

I'm glad some ones glad.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

I'm glad some ones glad.

[warmunger]

Alright gigadi gigadi gigadi!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Alright gigadi gigadi gigadi!

Shhh, quagmire...

[Dja Majista]

I need some friggin philosophy. Let's bring this back on topic.
"Cogito ergo sum."
Others may know it as "I think therefore I am."
This is Descartes' proof of his own existence. Is this rationalist approach insufficient? Your thoughts?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I dunno, do you believe you exist?

[Dja Majista]

Most likely.

[Psyquis52]

I suppose it's more of a question as to whether or not the pressence of reason determines the reality of one's existence.
What if a person has no way to relate the pressence of thought?
Say if said person is in a coma? Does said person no longer exist?

I think that Descartes' is a little too concise.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

If a person is in a coma do they exist to themselves? do we exist while in deep sleep. Somehow we all see most of the same things generally.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 18, 2008 23:34:26 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

I suppose it's more of a question as to whether or not the pressence of reason determines the reality of one's existence.
What if a person has no way to relate the pressence of thought?
Say if said person is in a coma? Does said person no longer exist?

I think that Descartes' is a little too concise.

Yes, well Descartes isn't arguing that it's so much a necessary condition that we have thoughts in order to exist, but a sufficient condition, nothing more. So, in other words, said comatose patient would not be able to prove that he exists, but that certainly doesn't mean that he does not.
Plus Descartes had a thing about mind and body being separate entities. And I think he identifies the self with the mind. So yes, he might argue that you don't exist in a coma. Rather you've phased out of existence for a time. Or if it's permenant comatose, you have effectively died.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 19, 2008 8:57:47 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Apr 18, 2008 23:34:26 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

I suppose it's more of a question as to whether or not the pressence of reason determines the reality of one's existence.
What if a person has no way to relate the pressence of thought?
Say if said person is in a coma? Does said person no longer exist?

I think that Descartes' is a little too concise.

Yes, well Descartes isn't arguing that it's so much a necessary condition that we have thoughts in order to exist, but a sufficient condition, nothing more. So, in other words, said comatose patient would not be able to prove that he exists, but that certainly doesn't mean that he does not.
Plus Descartes had a thing about mind and body being separate entities. And I think he identifies the self with the mind. So yes, he might argue that you don't exist in a coma. Rather you've phased out of existence for a time. Or if it's permenant comatose, you have effectively died.

I that case I think we need to dig up Descartes and step on his nuts.

Sorry. I'm in a strange mood tonight.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You're a kinky guy aren't you?

[Psyquis52]

Apr 22, 2008 22:24:30 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

You're a kinky guy aren't you?

Oh yeah!

[Dja Majista]

He is french. These philosophy discussions suck. Maybe I should just argue with myself.

[Psyquis52]

What's wrong? Now that I have no desire to give an intelligent rebuttle and we have no idiots to flame us you're not interested anymore?

I'll tell you what. Since it bugs you so bad I'll go ahead and make things complicated if you'd like.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 23, 2008 1:54:58 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

What's wrong? Now that I have no desire to give an intelligent rebuttle and we have no idiots to flame us you're not interested anymore?

Well... yeah, that's about right.
What can I say I like intelligent rebuttals. Otherwise it's not philosophy.

I'll tell you what. Since it bugs you so bad I'll go ahead and make things complicated if you'd like.

Do you guys really think I'm making things unnecessarily complicated? If you do just say so, but at least tell me why. These aren't exactly new philosophies that I'm spitting out. If you don't understand, I just need to explain it better.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 23, 2008 9:39:42 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Do you guys really think I'm making things unnecessarily complicated? If you do just say so, but at least tell me why. These aren't exactly new philosophies that I'm spitting out. If you don't understand, I just need to explain it better.

Oh for crying out loud.

No. I'm fine with philisophical debates.
I was just giving you a hard time.

Unfortunately I'm infamous for settling things entirely too quickly. Either I come to an agreement with the opposing side or I agree to disagree.

Sorry if that doesn't make for good long-term discussion; BUT let's use this as an excuse for you to come up with a new philosophical discussion topic every so often.
That's a stretch on you and keeps me interested, thus suitably entertaining us both.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 23, 2008 9:39:42 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Apr 23, 2008 1:54:58 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

What's wrong? Now that I have no desire to give an intelligent rebuttle and we have no idiots to flame us you're not interested anymore?

Well... yeah, that's about right.
What can I say I like intelligent rebuttals. Otherwise it's not philosophy.

I'll tell you what. Since it bugs you so bad I'll go ahead and make things complicated if you'd like.

Do you guys really think I'm making things unnecessarily complicated? If you do just say so, but at least tell me why. These aren't exactly new philosophies that I'm spitting out. If you don't understand, I just need to explain it better.

Well as long as it doesn't get to silly or off topic, I can understand David's complaint. Psy, he does take things a bit seriously sometimes, but it is online.

I didn't say that you made things too complicated for me, but others might think that, because of how you word them, they may think you are trying to simply sound smart. But I don't think that is usually your intention.

I do like to settle things much faster than I did back at KMC in my fanboy slaying days. Though honestly I was like this at first, but the buttholes made me change.

Philosophy to me is about the simplest and most complex things mixed together, there shouldn't be a "right" or wrong answer generally.

[Psyquis52]

I have noticed an intent to complicate the issues but whether or not he complicates the item for me is a different matter altogether.
I'm actually a very simple person.
That's why you see so little of me in the VS areas.
To me the question of whether Superman can beat Hulk is a simple answer. That was just an example. I'm certain to you guys it is as well I'm just saying that I don't need or desire to discuss such things. They're done before I started.

That and I'm lazy.
But philosophical discussions are another matter. I'll actually discuss most of them (if the discussion hasn't gone on too long without me)

[Dja Majista]

Oh great now I get called out for taking things too seriously. I mean I'm sure I'm humor unconscious sometimes but I have to say when I've already been told once that I'm making things too complicated, do you really expect me to think the person who says it next time is joking? Be fair.

*ahem* uh, anyway, two things...

Sorry if that doesn't make for good long-term discussion; BUT let's use this as an excuse for you to come up with a new philosophical discussion topic every so often.
That's a stretch on you and keeps me interested, thus suitably entertaining us both.

That's not a problem. Really, a philosophical question doesn't take 5 seconds to come up with. It could be as simple as "what is justice?" But the whole value of it is after we get past the... first part so to speak. Anyway, I'd keep the discussion going too, but I'm afraid I'll disclose some of my incredibly profound beliefs, which will remain classified until they're published, because I like glory. jk, but really, a good philosophy discussion is gonna take more than three or four posts per discussion. I'm just being honest.

Philosophy to me is about the simplest and most complex things mixed together, there shouldn't be a "right" or wrong answer generally.

No, I can't say that's a good way of going about doing things. If there's no right answer, there's really no point in philosophizing. Have you studied much epistemology? I'm of the impression that the whole thing about, "there's no such thing as true/false and right/wrong" was just something society developed to keep us from killing eachother. It's really not very rational though. Thomas Hobbes covers it briefly in Leviathan from what I've seen saying that right/wrong and true/false are merely faculties of language or "speech" he calls it. And that's what philosophy is anyway. Thoughts are just silent language. So yes an idea or a statement can be true or false. A question shouldn't be asked unless you're looking for the right answer.
But anyway if you want me to elaborate more I don't mind. Just say the word. And if I over did it, too bad.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 23, 2008 23:40:14 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Oh great now I get called out for taking things too seriously. I mean I'm sure I'm humor unconscious sometimes but I have to say when I've already been told once that I'm making things too complicated, do you really expect me to think the person who says it next time is joking? Be fair.

*ahem* uh, anyway, two things...

Sorry if that doesn't make for good long-term discussion; BUT let's use this as an excuse for you to come up with a new philosophical discussion topic every so often.
That's a stretch on you and keeps me interested, thus suitably entertaining us both.

That's not a problem. Really, a philosophical question doesn't take 5 seconds to come up with. It could be as simple as "what is justice?" But the whole value of it is after we get past the... first part so to speak. Anyway, I'd keep the discussion going too, but I'm afraid I'll disclose some of my incredibly profound beliefs, which will remain classified until they're published, because I like glory. jk, but really, a good philosophy discussion is gonna take more than three or four posts per discussion. I'm just being honest.

Philosophy to me is about the simplest and most complex things mixed together, there shouldn't be a "right" or wrong answer generally.

No, I can't say that's a good way of going about doing things. If there's no right answer, there's really no point in philosophizing. Have you studied much epistemology? I'm of the impression that the whole thing about, "there's no such thing as true/false and right/wrong" was just something society developed to keep us from killing eachother. It's really not very rational though. Thomas Hobbes covers it briefly in Leviathan from what I've seen saying that right/wrong and true/false are merely faculties of language or "speech" he calls it. And that's what philosophy is anyway. Thoughts are just silent language. So yes an idea or a statement can be true or false. A question shouldn't be asked unless you're looking for the right answer.
But anyway if you want me to elaborate more I don't mind. Just say the word. And if I over did it, too bad.

I have to disagree. That's not to say that anything is simply right, but that there isn't a definite answer, because if we had all of the answers, we wouldn't need philosophy in the first place. Trying to be "right" only ruins the discussions so to speak, being open and giving deep thoughts is a much better philosophical discussion.

[Dja Majista]

But trying to get the right answer is key.
True if we had all the answers we would have no reason to philosophize. In fact that's the one fear I have of heaven. All the answers are held in an omniscient accessible deity. We won't need to figure things out anymore. But I digress.
Philosophy is geared toward using logic to find answers. If it's cogent logic, it's the right answer, that simple. So we have a means of assessing these answers by checking if the logic is good. If we find it to be flawed, that places the conclusion into question. So in response to what your saying, you're right, we will very rarely be able to say we have the right answer because logic can be such a difficult thing to assess--depending on how complex it is. Contrariwise, the simpler it is (as is the case with math) the easier it is to assess. However, just because we can't always say for certain whether we have the right answer or not, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
I see where you're coming from though: the point is definitely not to be the one who is right, the point is to find the right answer, the "who" doesn't--shouldn't matter. Being open is key to finding the right answers.
One expression I have always found a little suspicious is "Everyone has their own perspective." as if it's peculiar to them or something. The point isn't to get the "right" perspective, but to take them all in...
And then there's this idea that everyone's opinion is right or "ok." What's wrong with just saying everyone is wrong and ignorant? including the self of course. I mean it's just as fair as the former statement, and most definitely more accurate. And nothing stimulates thought like a realization of ignorance. That's how Socrates did things; completely perplex people until they didn't know anything anymore, and they'd have to start from scratch. It's perfect. That and it gives the discussion a more collective feel rather than a competitive feel.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 23, 2008 23:40:14 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

but really, a good philosophy discussion is gonna take more than three or four posts per discussion. I'm just being honest.

Now that's hardly fair.
I think I've been very supportive of these philosophy discussions thus far.

And for the record
Long term posting is anything that exceeds 3 weeks.


BTW I am posting this in good spirits (not drunk) and I find you to be very entertaining in these discussion (again not drunk) and I think I would like to have your children....



(okay maybe a little drunk)
#cheers0kt#

[Dja Majista]

Nah, I wasn't directing anything at you. You type good succinct posts. And we had the free will discussion going pretty well too. You guys have to understand though, while I'm just a regular dude in real life (play video games, watch anime, sleep, eat chicken, drink powerade, sleep) I start philosophizing, I turn into some kinda monster. All of a sudden, if you can't be objective, you deserve to die, (yes, I deserve to die, what are you gonna do about it?) and if it's vague, it's completely unintelligible. And then I become indiscriminately critical of logic. Like I'll pick apart a joke, without caring that it's just a joke.
OK, so maybe I'm joking just a bit, but yeah, I am a bit of a freak when it comes to this kinda thing. You have to just accept the crazy man inside my head.

That's funny though, when you mentioned drunk, I remembered one of the philosophy exams required for graduation had a topic on it that said simply: Is philosophy best done drunk or sober?
I'm not sure if they expected a right answer to that one. And I'm still trying to figure out how you could argue the former seriously...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 27, 2008 23:28:06 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Apr 23, 2008 23:40:14 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

but really, a good philosophy discussion is gonna take more than three or four posts per discussion. I'm just being honest.

Now that's hardly fair.
I think I've been very supportive of these philosophy discussions thus far.

And for the record
Long term posting is anything that exceeds 3 weeks.


BTW I am posting this in good spirits (not drunk) and I find you to be very entertaining in these discussion (again not drunk) and I think I would like to have your children....



(okay maybe a little drunk)
#cheers0kt#

Wait, you drink? And it's clear it was directed at me... I don't even remember what was said, lol.

[Dja Majista]

I don't even remember what was said, lol.

But trying to get the right answer is key.
True if we had all the answers we would have no reason to philosophize. In fact that's the one fear I have of heaven. All the answers are held in an omniscient accessible deity. We won't need to figure things out anymore. But I digress.
Philosophy is geared toward using logic to find answers. If it's cogent logic, it's the right answer, that simple. So we have a means of assessing these answers by checking if the logic is good. If we find it to be flawed, that places the conclusion into question. So in response to what your saying, you're right, we will very rarely be able to say we have the right answer because logic can be such a difficult thing to assess--depending on how complex it is. Contrariwise, the simpler it is (as is the case with math) the easier it is to assess. However, just because we can't always say for certain whether we have the right answer or not, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
I see where you're coming from though: the point is definitely not to be the one who is right, the point is to find the right answer, the "who" doesn't--shouldn't matter. Being open is key to finding the right answers.
One expression I have always found a little suspicious is "Everyone has their own perspective." as if it's peculiar to them or something. The point isn't to get the "right" perspective, but to take them all in...
And then there's this idea that everyone's opinion is right or "ok." What's wrong with just saying everyone is wrong and ignorant? including the self of course. I mean it's just as fair as the former statement, and most definitely more accurate. And nothing stimulates thought like a realization of ignorance. That's how Socrates did things; completely perplex people until they didn't know anything anymore, and they'd have to start from scratch. It's perfect. That and it gives the discussion a more collective feel rather than a competitive feel.

There ya go.

[Dja Majista]

That, or we could discuss whether philosophy is best done drunk or sober. Either way works for me.