Rechercher
Forums MySpace » Religion & Philosophy » Philosophy » stupid thoughts in the middle of the night
Créer un nouveau sujet

Tri :  
  • 16 juillet 2006 01:24
    Répondre
    i think its funny how people discuss the world and life. they try to find the meaning of it whithout understanding that every thing in this earth is only relevant to earth.



    To truely understand life, you must consider everything that has life and how it evolves. After all, everything that "lives" goes through a process of change.

    Do most people that question life take the change of all the universes into consideration? from the sub-atomic universe, to the cosmic universe; we question life as if we were the main acts of life. You say you are here for a purpose? what purpose could that really be? if you take into consideration the universe, you will find that you are truely insignificant.

    however special you believe to be is just an extention of your ego. you only play a small part in life which is nothing when taken that human life will never have ny significance in the lifespan of the universe.

    sorry to say, but the theists have it the worst. they believe that the universe was created by "god". If they truelly understood anything, they would know how our universe was created. instead, they choose to argue with very weak points that have no value. believing that everything was created by a higher being, they sell themselves short and will never leave themselves room to grow. let me ask, what influence does god have on a neula multy billions of light years away? what influence does god have on the electronic particles in atoms? was god a phisics major? did he plan out how the cosmos would destroy and create themselves?

    in short, we ponder about life, yet there is so much we never consider.



    btw, god said "let there be light". he didnt say "let there be a nuclear ball of gases that change hydrogen into helium which creates energy which allows life in this solar system (not just earth).


  • 16 juillet 2006 01:27
    Répondre
    Sounds like Freudian projection to me, especially since there are quite a few metaphysics an philo of science threads buried in here.
  • 16 juillet 2006 01:40
    Répondre
    Holden CaulfieldWrote:

    Sounds like Freudian projection to me, especially since there are quite a few metaphysics an philo of science threads buried in here.


    hhm, not relly interested in Freud. that guy is alittle toooo psyco for me.
  • 16 juillet 2006 01:44
    Répondre
    I am interested in you outlining your refutation of Aristotle's unmoved mover argument and the negation of self reflexive empiricism in light of the comments you made in your post.
  • 16 juillet 2006 01:59
    Répondre
    sometimes i ponder why the ancient phylosohpers are held to great standard. is it because thye were asking questions when everyone else was accepting what was told to them? duno. i really dont care much about arestotle or socrates.

    i guess i find chinese phylosophy to be more interesting (tao te ching).

    although, i agree with socrates...( i know that i know nothing).
  • 16 juillet 2006 02:00
    Répondre
    i dont believe any ancient phylosopher is greater than anyone in here.
  • 16 juillet 2006 02:03
    Répondre
    • Wojcik
    • Garçon/101
    • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
    Holden CaulfieldWrote:

    Sounds like Freudian projection to me, especially since there are quite a few metaphysics an philo of science threads buried in here.




    i'd agree that projection bias pretty much answers the original post.
  • 16 juillet 2006 02:03
    Répondre
    Well Aristotle for one created a methodology of natural science, created the syllogism and logic (which stood until the late 19th century) as well as penetrating treatises on politics, metaphysics, physics, poetry, rhetoric and ethics. The tao is most definitely philosoophy however it is in no way equivocal to analytic, which is what is required to support the rather off hand and dubious claims constituting your post. His proof of the unmoved mover or first cause as it is also known would preclude most of your thought so I expected being familiar with it short of having a counter argument.
  • 16 juillet 2006 02:03
    Répondre
    Or a clever koan....
  • 16 juillet 2006 02:33
    Répondre
    LOSWrote:

    i dont believe any ancient phylosopher is greater than anyone in here.




    LOSWrote:

    i dont believe any ancient phylosopher is greater than anyone in here.




    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
  • 16 juillet 2006 06:57
    Répondre
    LOSWrote:

    i dont believe any ancient phylosopher is greater than anyone in here.




    Oh man :)

    That is just delicious.

    Thank you!
Tri :  
Disponible