Philosophical views

[Anonymous]

I have just started to read 'Sophie's World' by Jostien Gaarder and all these views have started to pop into my head like, well, poppy things. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone else had any of those sort of views. Like 'Does Fate exist?' and 'If there really was a big bang, does that mean that at some point something came out of nothing?' I believe that what Socretes said about 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing at all' really shows how little we really know about how everything works. 'Everything that happens has a cause, and that cuase is inherent in everything.'

[Anonymous]

I seriously can't say, I went through this stage like 3 months ago, me and my friends started to have philisophical questions and we all discussed them and argued, but then that begs that questions at the end.  When you argue your point out does it really matter?

[Anonymous]

Go for a Descarte and only believe in things you are entirely certain exist, that there is no way it could be false, if it adheres, believe in it, if it doesn't disregard it.
The only problem is then Descartes gets a bit carried away and starts doubting his senses as he might be being tricked into believing something is real when it really isn't, having his senses shown a falsity by some malicious demon...hm that sounds familiar...

[Anonymous]

My very first day of History class in middle school...the teacher asked us to prove that man had walked on the moon. Much chaos ensued.  My best school memory ever.

Without getting too philosophical about it, I'm pretty sure the food I ate this morning is real.  Cuz I sure am putting on real pounds.  

[Anonymous]

Are those pounds real, or is there simply a mad scientist in a lab telling your brain that you have put on this weight, when really you are a brain in a vat with no body as Peter Unger mused(no pun intended).
gotta love "Matrix and Philosophy" you can spout random crap that makes you feel intelligent

[Anonymous]

Draven and uhh Ajax it's funny how you both refer to Descartes' meditations. I was reading a book on philoshpy called Think - a beginners introduction into philosohpy by Simon Blackburn, who's a professor at some college like oxford or soemthing. He mentioned alot at first about Descartes and his meditations. The fact that he began to think that there was an actual "Evil Demon" points to the fact that he was more then likely becoming senile and a little out of his mind. Of course once we state this fact, it's very hard to bring any arguement against it. What can you say? That it's true? How can you support that? That it's false? What evidence do you have to state your claim?

It's all very interesting, and if you go to deep then your mind can comphrehend you can lose it, and very rarely find your way back. Sometimes we have to take things at face value, simply because they are that way and to delve into the matter would not only prove pointless, but tedious and sometimes dangerous. As Descartes, my only rock t stand on is  the famous Descartes quote - Cogito Ergo Sum. I thnk therefore I am. I am thinking about this sbject, so somwhere, some dimension, some place or universe, or fabric of time, I'm thinking this thought. They can't stop you from thinking. Your mind is trhe only place freedom really reigns, the only real place of the brave, and land of the free.

To end this reply, it's really funny how often ppl take I think therefore I am to mean soemthing like I think I am a cooker, so I am one. Even though tehy're taking it out of context that it wa originally used and intended for, just goes to show you the power of the mind.

Peace Out

[Anonymous]

I have just started to read 'Sophie's World' by Jostien Gaarder and all these views have started to pop into my head like, well, poppy things. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone else had any of those sort of views. Like 'Does Fate exist?' and 'If there really was a big bang, does that mean that at some point something came out of nothing?' I believe that what Socretes said about 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing at all' really shows how little we really know about how everything works. 'Everything that happens has a cause, and that cuase is inherent in everything.'

Craziness. I've just started reading Sophie's World as well. I must say I'm really into it so far. Part of me always had this simple-minded belief that all of philosophy was completely pointless - my rationale basically being that there is something inherently hypocrytical in sitting back in an armchair and inventing cynical ways to disavow current societal insitutions and mass-beliefs without actively attempting to rectify any cited injustices. Of course, I know that many philosophers did actively attempt to better society, but many did not, instead they merely criticized those who tried.

Though that feeling is still always present, I've come to except a few new beliefs which credit philosophy. I suppose philosophy isn't a waste of time, if only for the reason that we have the ability to sit back and contemplate the meaning of life, the universe and God - so why not make use of it? The ability to question the fabric of life is ultimately what makes us human, so philosophy therefore is a natural course for humanity, and as such justifiable.

And to put it simply...It's just fun to play the game of 'why'.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of which, has anybody seen Vanilla Skies?  In general, a trippy movie, but recall Kurt Russell's character at the end: he can't believe that he's just a figment of someone else's imagination.  

One has to wonder if he ever had a true "sentience," during the time he believed himself to be real, even if that sentience was merely a partitioned portion of someone's dreaming mind.

Makes you wonder...  can an instanced character of a dream possess a temporary ego and awareness of himself as an individual being?  If so, this breaks down Descartes's primary assertion.  What about you?  Are you a real individual intelligence, or are you merely a character in someone else's dream?

[Anonymous]

Descartes is the way to go. "Cogito ergo sum." The only thing one can know for sure is that one exists. Thus, everything else must be questioned. When we stop questioning, we accept things as they are, and it is then that we become prisoners to our minds.

I think about philisophical stuff all the time. The thing with me though, is I'm a really logical person. As in i figure stuff out by proving it through reasoning methods based on things already thought of. Thus, i've often found my philisophical point of views different than others. The only thing is, I can prove what they say wrong, even if i have no idea that I'm right. What i mean is that things i have been told and taught to believe i have often logically disproved. So for me it has become more of a search for what is not right than what is right, and coming closer through deductive reasoning. Of course, this can always have its limits unless i work like hell to overcome them. I really have no idea if what i just said makes any sense because im tired as hell and type this in a stream of consciousness kinda way (thats how i always am, very stream of consciousness, it pisses my english teacher off) so hopefully you get what im saying.

[Tbone]

I took Philosophy last semester, and it might as well have been Descartes 101. Philosophers have basically come up with a system that allows no one the chance to prove anything. Nothing is real unless you can prove it is real, and since many argue there is no way to prove something is real (since perception can be tampered with), then nothing can be proven. In the end nothing is really accomplished besides a big headache. It's interesting for a while, but it would make more sense if things could actually go somewhere.

[Anonymous]

I disagree. There are a number of things that are always real, like the fundamentals of the universe; 2+2=4 and saving a baby from a speeding bus. These facts will always be right. Mathematics will always be right, and in no way can it be properly wrong. And saving a baby from a bus is always going to be the right thing to do. Even if you knew that that baby would grow up into a terrible human being, would you still save it? I know that if I was given the choice, I would. I think it was Socrates who said 'A man who knows what is right will always do the right thing.' He believed that no one can be happy unless he does what he believes is right deep down. And so he believed that the more he knew, the more he knew would know what is right, and therefore the happier he would be. None would choose to be unhappy, would they?

[Anonymous]

I liked the cynics retort to Descartes First Meditation( in which he says that nothing is true unless you can prove for certain it exists) which is "Are you certain something has to be certain?" or something like that.

And was Descartes insane, or overly sane?
If the Matrix, or something like Unger, Therman or Descartes visions of the world were real, then he'd be the only one not insane.

[Anonymous]

"I disagree. There are a number of things that are always real, like the fundamentals of the universe; 2+2=4 and saving a baby from a speeding bus."

I see this as a problem.. We are humans, and see the world and the universe as we can. How did that puzzle thing start? Something about humans who have been taught to see the world the way they do never can see it differently. Now, this doesnt mean 2+2 doesnt become 4. But a lot of other things.. Different universes? Worlds in different universes or whatever that works in a different way than the laws of gravity and light and such...

How could we know?

[Anonymous]

Well, not to get too religious or anything, but what about God? Now let's not debate about whether the entity known as The Alpha and the Omega exists, but skip right to an assumption that he does exist. This is all hypothetical thinking of course so please just bear with me. I think Soma will appreciate this since he likes logic. If God is god, and being that he's all powerful, then 2+2 would only equal 4 if he said it to be. If we were to do the converse of this statement to try and figure it out, (the converse is the Q-->P) it would be 2+2 would only equal 4 if he is all powerful and God is God. That makes sense. All we're doing here is going from the back of the sentence to prove it, using uncommon common knowledge to solve the problem.

The point I'm trying to prove is if there was a God, then he can manipulate the laws of mathematics, and the laws of relativity, and all of the laws that we hold dear and govern ourselves by. Of course if there is no God, what made these rules? What causes these....."occurences"?

LOL not to get to deep. Like I said it's really hard to contemplate these things. All we'll end up is with losing our minds because we won't be able to beleive that the person next to us is real, and we'll become cynical and crazy. Like I said b4, we have to take some things at face value, only because that's the way they are.

[Anonymous]

Incorporating metaphysics into a philisophical argument is tough.  In my eyes, mathematics is the one true aspect of the universe.  Even if our walls came tumbling down, and the world around us was proven false, mathematics are still correct.  They're the only factual aspect of science that is independent of the need to be proven.

Everything in this universe someone could quantify with mathematics.  Now the mathematic perception CAN be proven wrong, however the system of mathematics remains true.  In fact, scientists have relied on mathematics as the primary form of communication with would-be extra terrestrials.  If anything, they know that aliens would understand mathematics because it's a system that everyone uses regardless of their origins.