Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cmega3]

snip

[Knight of Fools]

Ooh, philosophy.

The philosophy class I took earlier this year really woke me up to a lot of the stuff I had never thought about. It was a really enlightening experience, and probably my most influential college course up to this point.

Despite the fact that the class was little more than a history book of philosophers and ideologies, it delved deep enough to get me thinking about what I thought about existence. I didn't get too crazy with it since most "big" philosophies offer some fairly off-the-wall ideas (Anything you don't perceive doesn't exist? Nothing exists?!), but it's something I recommend for everyone since it opens you up to so many ideas you don't really encounter in casual conversation. Just don't think your friends find your personal discoveries interesting: There's a reason it doesn't show up in casual conversation.


Breaking my own advice, here's what I've decided about Life, the Universe, and Everything:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I decided that there's two realities: Perceived Reality and Absolute Reality. Perceived Reality exists only in our mind, and we can't know what the Absolute Reality is for certain because our only method of interacting with the Absolute Reality is with our senses. We rely on things such as the Scientific Method, which is a useful tool for observing the results of something but doesn't always give us clear hints as to how or why. For example, we can observe gravity and maybe one day we'll find something that gives is a more concrete answer as to why gravity exists, but we can never know for certain if what we find is the true cause of gravity.

Going deeper, you can say the same of anything else we "know": We may have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the surface, but that's all we'll able to figure out. Anything we determine by our senses alone is inherently flawed, and regardless of how close to the truth we get we'll never know for certain just by using our perceptions. The only way to know the Absolute Truth is to have some sort of godlike perception of things, which, as humans, we don't.

This thought process meanders off into whether or not we can ever know things for certain based on whether you believe in God or not, which in turn meanders off into its own meanderings about perceiving God or His absence in some way. In the end, the only way to know for certain of anything is to have God let you know something in a way that bypasses your senses or to become God yourself. (This is assuming God or a god doesn't rely on His senses, He just knows.)

Otherwise we're relying on our own mortal perceptions and we'll never know for certain, no matter what our senses tell us. The man who claims to see God could be just as mistaken as the man who claims he does not see Him and vice versa.

Coming to this conclusion really opened my mind to how I saw others' beliefs, and even how I saw my own beliefs. We're all wrong in our own ways, some of us are just more wrong. Since I might be more wrong than you in some way, I might as well not make a big deal about it or I might end up looking pretty stupid later on.

Of course, none of this precludes attempting to understanding the universe as we perceive it. Simply because we'll never have a perfect understanding of something does not give us an excuse to not try.

[Grand Nagus]

I think studying philosophy trains people to be sophists so they can feel smart, about themselves.
Much like religion. Only remove smart and add secure.

Philosophical insight incoming; it's the same thing.
Woah dude.

Other than that it's use as a subject is..... scarcely higher than astrology.

[Pnx]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I decided that there's two realities: Perceived Reality and Absolute Reality. Perceived Reality exists only in our mind, and we can't know what the Absolute Reality is for certain because our only method of interacting with the Absolute Reality is with our senses. We rely on things such as the Scientific Method, which is a useful tool for observing the results of something but doesn't always give us clear hints as to how or why. For example, we can observe gravity and maybe one day we'll find something that gives is a more concrete answer as to why gravity exists, but we can never know for certain if what we find is the true cause of gravity.

Going deeper, you can say the same of anything else we "know": We may have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the surface, but that's all we'll able to figure out. Anything we determine by our senses alone is inherently flawed, and regardless of how close to the truth we get we'll never know for certain just by using our perceptions. The only way to know the Absolute Truth is to have some sort of godlike perception of things, which, as humans, we don't.

This thought process meanders off into whether or not we can ever know things for certain based on whether you believe in God or not, which in turn meanders off into its own meanderings about perceiving God or His absence in some way. In the end, the only way to know for certain of anything is to have God let you know something in a way that bypasses your senses or to become God yourself. (This is assuming God or a god doesn't rely on His senses, He just knows.)

Otherwise we're relying on our own mortal perceptions and we'll never know for certain, no matter what our senses tell us. The man who claims to see God could be just as mistaken as the man who claims he does not see Him and vice versa.

Coming to this conclusion really opened my mind to how I saw others' beliefs, and even how I saw my own beliefs. We're all wrong in our own ways, some of us are just more wrong. Since I might be more wrong than you in some way, I might as well not make a big deal about it or I might end up looking pretty stupid later on.

Of course, none of this precludes attempting to understanding the universe as we perceive it. Simply because we'll never have a perfect understanding of something does not give us an excuse to not try.

Reading this statement makes me want to go play Receiver.

EDIT: Or rather, just the first paragraph...

Really this is a lot of old hat material in a lot of philosophical circles.

[Vector]

Other than that it's use as a subject is..... scarcely higher than astrology.

. . .

The fact that you can't separate a field of study from its use explains precisely why you should study philosophy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh god, what have you done? You can't put Bay 12 on a philosophy discussion!

[Knight of Fools]

Never played Receiver. Didn't realize it was anything beyond raging at the obtuse controls and mechanics.

Really this is a lot of old hat material in a lot of philosophical circles.

Yeah, I'm hardly original in most of my thoughts but the trail of discovery was pretty influential to me.

I went into the course having no idea what I thought "philosophically" and kind of had the same impression that Grand Nagus had - That being that philosophy is just for folks who like feeling smart. I figured I'd take the class, get the credit, have a few good laughs, and go on with my life. As I went through the course, though, I realized that it was less about feeling smart and more about understanding how you see everything, and how your perceptions shape the world around you.

I felt kinda silly for discounting philosophy off hand because I wasn't a "philosopher", so I sat back and figured out what appealed to me and what I thought about what I'd read.

It's hardly an applicable course, in that you can't get a philosophy degree and get a job besides teaching, but it's something everyone should be briefly exposed to none-the-less. It's very personal, and anyone who uses it as an excuse to sound smart or push others into believing what they do is philosophizing wrong.

[kaijyuu]

Just popping in to note that philosophy is literally the basis of all human knowledge and understanding. Thought that was science? Too bad; science is only part of that (it's a subset of philosophy). The scientific method was created by a philosopher.

[Pnx]

Never played Receiver. Didn't realize it was anything beyond raging at the obtuse controls and mechanics.

In Receiver there's some kind of crazy storyline about how humans exist in two worlds at the same time, and such and such... It's sort of weird and incomprehensible.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just popping in to note that philosophy is literally the basis of all human knowledge and understanding. Thought that was science? Too bad; science is only part of that (it's a subset of philosophy). The scientific method was created by a philosopher.

No it isn't. Philosophy builds off of what we empirically (or not so empirically, in the case of nutters) know through science. While the two are related historically, modern philosophy is ultimately subservient to science (or at least the parts of it that aren't crazy are).

[Grand Nagus]

Other than that it's use as a subject is..... scarcely higher than astrology.

. . .

The fact that you can't separate a field of study from its use explains precisely why you should study philosophy.

That fact you think a field of study that has no use has a use, explains why I shouldn't.
P.S. I did study Philosophy. So you're assertion is invalid either way.

Philosophy is like religion, it's all good as long as you keep it to yourself.

[Playergamer]

I play adventure games. That gives me the power to officially say, nothing has no use.

[Pnx]

Just popping in to note that philosophy is literally the basis of all human knowledge and understanding. Thought that was science? Too bad; science is only part of that (it's a subset of philosophy). The scientific method was created by a philosopher.

No it isn't. Philosophy builds off of what we empirically (or not so empirically, in the case of nutters) know through science. While the two are related historically, modern philosophy is ultimately subservient to science (or at least the parts of it that aren't crazy are).

If I may, how do you know something through science?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just popping in to note that philosophy is literally the basis of all human knowledge and understanding. Thought that was science? Too bad; science is only part of that (it's a subset of philosophy). The scientific method was created by a philosopher.

No it isn't. Philosophy builds off of what we empirically (or not so empirically, in the case of nutters) know through science. While the two are related historically, modern philosophy is ultimately subservient to science (or at least the parts of it that aren't crazy are).

If I may, how do you know something through science?

No, we are not doing this again. We all are well versed on the scientific method and what words mean in a scientific context. I am not indulging you in a semantics debate.

[kaijyuu]

You can't trust science without trusting empiricism, and you have no defense of empiricism that isn't philosophical.

Science is to philosophy as physics is to math. One is an application of the other.

All the precepts of science are philosophical arguments. All of them.