Why Don't We Have a Philosophy Section on CR4?

You seem to be doing fine on your own...
or at least I think you are therefore you are!
We have discussed philosophy before...
Del

You are waxing philosophically today, sir.

_{Sorry, it would not be resisted.}

Tell me you wrote this late last night, and just didn't send it till this morning. Otherwise, I may worry about you.

" philosophy is nothing more than random thought sitting on the curb waiting for a bus load of validation to come along." But, if it's raining won't philosophy get splashed?

No worries. I wrote it this morning. I forgot to go to sleep last night.

Yes, philosophy can get splashed.......but does it get wet?

Well, that's odd.

Somewhere in the course of my slow brain burn, I lost the ability to send PM's.

Can I tag that as humor?

Well, will it be Dr. Kramarat or Prof. Kramarat?

I'm leaning towards guest, with a capitol G.

Dear Kramarat, No Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessments ...there is no good reason the lowliest toilet scrubbers, should not to be allowed, to fully participate in the freedoms granted all the rest of us toilet scrubbers. P.S. Count me as one who thinks …....gambling is philosophically wrongheaded. Ray

Philosophic discussions would take much more time and thought to respond to than is available on this forum. Philosophy, although an extremely interesting topic, is akin to religion and may not have any answer.

That's never stopped us before.

Great! I majored in lesbian studies, with a minor in, "Why am I fat?"

No wonder I don't quite fit in.

Hard to find work too.

So, I've had your gender wrong all this time????????????????????????????????

No, I was kidding. Lost track of the off button on the brown liquer........

Oops

Happens every few months.

Guys can major in lesbian studies......it's the law!!!!!

BTW, we all know you are a bitter old man, not a kid in a cowboy hat.

I don't quite fit in

My wife's nephew graduated with a degree in women's studies and another in religious studies from Georgetown.

The kid is also a bit loopy about foods - vegetarian and wannabe vegan not to mention a freeloader.

Visited one time and was tolerable (barely) - visited a second time along with girlfriend that was more militant than he and I doubt we have to worry about seeing the useless twit or his mother again!!!!!!!!

Was having trouble finding a suitable position (notice I did not say work) last I heard.

Oddly today I penned two replies on this topic.

The first (edited)

Dad, I need to ask you a few questions, and i want you to answer as honestly as you can. you will not be judged on the basis of your answers, this is for research purposes only.

Q. What do you believe is the purpose of life ?
A. To add value.
Be that to your friends lives, your families lives, the society at large, or the World as a whole.

What is to be achieved to have lived well/successfully/fully/acceptably ?
Satisfaction in achieving some or all of the above, as well as you can, over the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

What do you think is important in life/living ?
Find and Add your best value.

What do you think is the ultimate purpose or destination of humanity ?
To realise the above, across humanity, possibly the Universe.

What is your concept of divinity and it's role in life ?
"God" is the short form of good - as in doing good (adding value) builds better quality of "existence" - than not 'adding' (7 deadly sins = waste) or 'subtracting' = evil

Explain consciousness
Awareness that you can.
('add', 'waste', 'subtract', being 'choices' associated with 'proof of sentience')

Explain matter
Matter is stuff that is not currently energy.

Where do you think we are [if anywhere] before birth ? How do we get here ? and What happens after we die ?
I don't know.
From what I have seen of birth and death, we are the same as animals. I.e. you get one shot at 'achieving the above'.

The concept of a soul is, to me, originally a construct by Man to cause 'value adding' - (specialness/reward/bribe/for goodness, so society survival) but that, and 'philosophy' in general, has become a 'system' for getting paid whilst not adding tangible value themselves . 3.7 Pride

For that 2,000 years of philosophy and theology see Wiki.

------------------------------

Earlier today I wrote another PM on "this topic" which abridged went;

So, ironically, he writes an existential treatise (as in, his preoccupation with his existence) painting all divergent preoccupations, as existential .... so Anti ...

-------------------------------

It's hardly 'rocket surgery' as to why it's silly on CR4. My child has a better grasp of the concepts/questions.

A pretty sound post, it scores a pretty good brevquot when compared to Bible/Koran/Baghadvita/LOTR etc
Del

While I cannot completely disagree with your last paragraph, I suggest that an interest in physics or the natural laws of the universe, however we want to name them, was just as likely to provoke a question, after all, there is a history of "correct" theories being replaced by better ones. I can't compete on academics, mine was the school of hard knocks, but then that doesn't add or detract from the substance of the argument.

At the moment would I wonder what philosophers and others involved in the humanities would make of the re-appearance of action at a distance. It's unacceptability was a driver in the birth and/or youth of "Relativity" but now has been shown to be a recipe in the Quantum cookbook.

I have no business being on here right now.

I decided one time, that the Ouija board was nonsense. I was wrong. Big time! Take my word. Don't mess with it...............EVER.

The smarter I get, the less I know.

I could give answer to that if you wished, but you would likely not like that answer.

Ohooowwoo Dr are we picking on the Karmarat?

If I may Quote

"The true value of a philosophical education ...., is that it teaches you to question your assumptions."

This one I think is assuming there was a question - as opposed to a series of statements.

Or it should read

"I could give response to that if you wished, but you would likely not like that response".

Philosophically speaking - for the sake of 'precision'

I was in no wise picking on Kramarat. Further, I used the term "answer" in it's classical sense, which is to say, a response. So your rephrase of my statement was quite literally accurate.

Go ahead, but you must phrase your answer in the shape of a question?

May I direct to to a pertinent post?

35

I think you forgot that.

And much in the same vain; when there is a thread on "Military Service" feel free astonish us all on that.

Meanwhile, do try to appreciate it lends no "authority" to any opinion on any other topic.

In fact I regard it as;

1. a tactic to dominate/silence/guilt trip, those who have not "served", for no other reason than fate or gender.

2. it seriously annoys those who saw the pointy end.

3. who resent the reliving such remarks evoke.

4. and know the type that makes them.

5. and so feel in between another rock and a hard place, if they point out they too served.

You really need to give some thought to your "obvious conflicts" and "selfish neediness for approval", before you attempt "big picture questions".

Because we don't want to start a nuclear war

Considering all the "random" and noxious Rule 75 threads of late it may behove the Mods to create a "Philosophy" section to allow us to vent lyrical.

If only as a circuit breaker from the onslaught of inanity...

Oh the Humanity!

Hi kramarat (Kram/a/rat?) [and were?]

Just very quickly my friend.

If it were not for the philosophical nuances here in CR4 I wouldn't even spend time in these lustrous circles. I find fine and logic thought interwoven at just the right amount in the mix by several members.

With out a bit of deeper thought about the how and who, we and why and in what tone and with what out come using which tool at the right temperature........ The list of combination's is endless. Just like in pure thought philosophy.

What is more beautiful,

A field of daisies or a single orchid?

A huge diesel engine or just one little injector?

It is the thought that counts. These create a path and we become part of a society if we walk in the same direction, for a while. I don't think Socrates would have sat around all day blowing bubbles. I betcha he had other things to tend to as well.

Just like some ^(hobby) philosophers here, most only come out when they are in the zone. It takes one to be in one.

The pleasure of a free and beautiful thought can be found anywhere, just look at the beauty of a nut and bolt.

Don't mention the war penguins, Nietzsche,...,...,...,...and you know who

I could go on for a while but it is Sunday here and nobody is going to do it for me, I mean the chores.

Greetings, Ky.

Thank you ky,

I have dipped my toes beneath the relatively still waters of percieved reality. And I can promise you.......ignorance is bliss.....There is no turning back. Be very careful what you wish for. You are my friend.

One more thing.

I own my stupidity, I will never post as guest.

Thank you.......Thank you very much.

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Cicero

Maybe we shy away from this on CR4 because of the absurdities into which it often degenerates.

A very wise man, the former chair of the philosophy department at NDSU, once said something to me which it is well for all of us to remember. "Everything you think you know, everything you have deduced or thought, may very easily be wrong." To many of us forget this.

"Everything you think you know, everything you have deduced or thought, may very easily be wrong." [Post 35] Does this wise person have a name?

This sentiment seems to echo the ethos of science (and similar evidence-based pursuits), which is open to revision upon persuasive further observation.

It is in ideology, pseudoscience, metaphysics, and the like--where evidence is weak--that one tends to find people holding dogmatically to beliefs, and claiming they will never be budged. [Which sounds more like post 31]

??

His name was Professor Jovan Brickich. I know I have misspelled his last name, but that was how it was pronounced. He was Chair of Philosophy at North Dakota State University when I attended there in the early 80s, and he was a very wise man.

As to your charge, I plead guilty. I do believe in the Bible, exactly as written. Though I admit that my interpretation of various portions of it may very easily be wrong as well. The one thing I do know, absolutely and for certain, is that I know very little.

Dear Dr - We all agree with your last sentence.

Regards

That was uncalled for, and cowardly.

Dr. Jovan Brkić

You knew him?

Balderdash, drivel and poppycock.

A cockamamie prophet from the boondocks

I consider us all friends here. A little madness is inevitable.

The Ouija board incident was almost 30 years ago, and yes it still bugs me.

The reason I like science, engineering, and everything mechanical, is that they operate within a given and predictable set of parameters. This is good.

A long time ago, I thought I wanted to know everything there is to know. I no longer do.

This has nothing to do with religion, but I have come to know that the answer to everything is very, very simple.

I will steer clear of purely philosophical discussion on here in the future. Some of you may consider philosophy, science. I don't, maybe I'm not smart enough to get it, to me it only seems to muddy the water.

The weekend was not a complete loss, in between my crazed rants on here, I had a big bonfire in the yard, great food and time with family. Through facebook, I also connected with the son of one of my friends who was reaching out, and convinced him that suicide is not the answer. Overall, not bad.

"Wisdom ceases to be wisdom when it becomes too proud to weep, too grave to laugh, and too selfish to seek other than itself "

I like that - in a word - 'anal'.

GA

GA and well put klearzan.

I'm not a bad person, although I do have a proclivity to get emotional. What set me off this weekend was a 2 part philosophical blog. I read the first part, in which comments were shut off, and at the end said that comments would be shut off in part 2 also.

Although I vastly overrected, it seemed as if the blogger just wanted to tell us how things are, with no room for opposing opinion or comment.

Philosophy is rooted in questions, I suppose it is a science, problem is, there is a wide range of belief systems, each holding very different philosophical tenets. I don't think that finding a common ground that everyone can agree on is possible.

Your thread has caused me to ponder... (no, I'm not drowning... I don't think?).

A common concept between science and philosophy is the idea of "proof." I would think a discussion of what constitutes proof would be somewhat unifying to the discussion of science and philosophy. Is proof in one arena the same as proof in the other? Scientific theories have rested on mathematical "proofs." Then real-world experiments either validated the mathematical conclusion or not. Are mathematical proofs purely conceptual? Does logic mean anything in an absolute sense? Or is what we call logic only a process of the human mind without meaning beyond a tautological expression? (Another way of restating, in a way, the question posed by a recent thread entitled, "Does Math Really Exist?") We often say something is "self-evident." What does that mean? What is Logic?

I think there is an overlap in the definition of proof in one arena vs. the other. But there are also examples showing that there are different definitions of proof in each.

As has been pointed out, science has it's roots in classical philosophy. It seems to me that the main difference is: math's meaning was broadened to include it as a quantitative tool for science. Measurement is a key characteristic of science. Measurement relies on math. Science is almost equatable with measurement. And yet, it is the very process of thought -- logical thought -- which has led to all scientific theories/hypotheses. So now the foundation of science rests on logic again. (Actually, I must qualify this because more than a few scientific "insights" happened spontaneously, outside a recognized "train" of logical thought. So where does that "truth" come from?)

Science relies more on math as measurement, while philosophy relies more on logic for it's "measurement." But are they mutually exclusive, if it is agreed that one led to the other? Maybe... maybe not. It is possible for 2 scientists to have a theoretical/philosophical discussion of a "scientific" theory or idea, utilizing math and/or logic (where the math is implied). Is that an example of the commonality between both worlds?

This comment is attempting to utilize what we call logic. And it assumes there is a relationship between alphabetical character arrangement, word arrangement, and spaces(??) that is meaningful. Is it proof of that, that someone responds to these arrangements with like arrangements, and so on? There is a "thread" of such arrangements above that seem to indicate "Yes."

I think the best conclusion to this post is the famous quote attributed to President Richard Nixon:

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
- Richard M. Nixon

Just sayin'.

(Is this post a good Proof of "Why Don't We Have a Philosophy Section on CR4?" Also, I know a great post in response to this one... but I'm not telling. Hint: It would be Zen-like... sort of. )

These are actually conversations that are worth having...............and I enjoy them.

This thread was started in response to the fact that a member, (no longer around), that happened to be a GS employee, was starting philosophy related blogs, and proceeding to downgrade and belittle anyone that happened to respond, whether they agreed with him or not. He went on to shut off our ability to respond, as well as abusing the PM system, and using it to taunt and ridicule some other members.

In other words, it wasn't a philosophy discussion.....................it was a game that was being played by one blogger. At the time, having no philosophy discussion looked better than what we were being subjected to.

I personally have no problem discussing philosophy or anything else. I'm not sure if that's true across the board here though.

Understood.