What is the Most Important Philosophical Question

a reply to: Astrocyte

Philosphy is no more useless without science as science is without philosophy.

And emperical evedince is certainly not always possible in science particularly with cosmology.

This is why Popper (a philosopher) changed the scientific method to move towards falsifiability.

Philosophy is every bit as important as science and has plenty of uses without evidence.

Like learning how to spot falacy.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

thanks for explaining!
you has funny and smart way of posting, good for dispelling my brain farting ... i am grateful!

a reply to: luthier


My definition? I haven't stated my definition of anything all I said is that YOU confused the words create and modify.

If you believe that people were not created, you shouldnt think there is a "reason" for life, if all we did was crawl out the slime because of chance and luck, there is no meaning to any of it.

THE ALL is Mind

a reply to: fatkid

I just don't have a black and white mind or the need for simple answers.

So no God is not required to have meaning in life.

We were created the same way we could create a new species by mutation or by engineering or selective breeding.

It wouldn't take a god to create us from slime either seeing as we are almost there ourselves.

I believe in the Anhropic principle, I do believe in a designer, I think metaphysics is hard to state what is true but there is still some falsifiability possible to point out falacy.

There is no logic argument that creation has to be the only way life has meaning.

In fact I would say the Spinoza was close, as are the Buddhist panthiests, that it's enjoying the moment your in, being here now.

Nothing happens without observation. Observation is meaning. Being part of the universe of expirience is meaning.

If your attacking me for not believing in a diety well, I can't say it isn't possible but I just don't have a platform I feel is adequate to explain reality in any religeon. Too caught up arguing what the word "the" means and how they are right.

Since the philosophical guns are out I’ll join the party.

Since the philsophical gums are out I’ll join the party..

Since the philosophical guns are out Ill join the party.


Reality is a circle, an ever revolving, evolving circle of being. Though humans now are an ellipse (imperfect circle)…

There are two kinds of circles, a Perfect Circle and an ellipse (imperfect circle)…humans mainly are the latter though we are evolving back to the Perfect Circle.

Of course, there is a first cause at times within the circle but it is not the first cause because there is no first cause since GOD (Reality) is infinite and you can no more find any first cause as you could find God in all his forms.

Philosophically though, it is clear reality is a circle. What do we do but repetitive experiences and events on a regular basis? We eat regularly, love regularly, and sleep regularly, etc…

That is a CIRCLE

An imperfect circle (ellipse) is when the inevitable suffering event will intervene in ones life circle or circles and wreck some kind of havoc with your existence.

A Perfect Circle is when ones existence has transcended that suffering event.

The Return to the Perfect Circle from the ellipse is all what spirituality and religion is about

a reply to: luthier

Philosphy is no more useless without science as science is without philosophy.

I'm pretty sure most thinking people would regard this sentence as an oxymoron.

Science as a method is epistemological. It's designed to make philosophical whimsy less whimsical - less based in an arbitrary thinking mode, caught up in what the psychologist Daniel Kahneman terms "shifting baseline syndrome".

But science - or the epistemological method of empiricism - of course needs philosophy - or ontology - there for reflection, so that science doesn't stay so "small-minded" i.e. its discoveries not brought into reflection upon what is real, and how things work.

This is why Popper (a philosopher) changed the scientific method to move towards falsifiability.

I take it you didn't read Quines classic criticism of the supposed perfection of falsfiability. It's a useful method - but not without its problems.

Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.

Philosophy is every bit as important as science and has plenty of uses without evidence.

The deepest questions - or the questions which pertain to the nature of our form, structure, and functioning, cannot be explained without science.

So where does that leave philosophy without science? Aesthetics? Certainly not ethics - as ethics has everything to do with understanding how we work, and so improving ourselves by integrating empirical evidences from the sciences.

a reply to: Willtell

That's an interesting way of putting it. Where did you get this idea? The circle - or feedback loop - is basically essential to the living. Anything that sustains a regular form sustains it through repetition until 'entropy' takes over and the structure falls apart.

a reply to: Willtell

Enjoy that halo? gonna wear it as a crown or a ring... Head finger or circumference of that um snake below the equator to wrestle between life and death with? Eh dont worry there's a triangle one if they want to rack it up to eeeeee-ville yes a state of mind or being stupidity breeds into more stupidity like a hot pocket to throw supple minds into slavery weeeee!

Silliness no ignorance can and will be used against you anytime you bite that hot lava as reality... truth in concept? Mental formation mental abortion some of them should be labeled the fiction they are cast off like a dirty rag to walk into the future that wee then becomes a net in hey where are you going you damned dirty ape? To put you back in the defect pile.

:p so sit there and sit there and ding awareness you pop tart is done oh yeah oh wait it's just another hot pocket burns just the same... net after net after net shrink and grow filter through be like water...

a reply to: luthier

.... if something happens out of luck/chance, there is no purpose... it is simple English.

You have to understand what this conversation is about, it's not "does life have meaning", sure the "meaning" of you life could be to procreate.

This conversation is about philosophy and DEEPER meanings, if something happens because of random process or luck or chance or just because, then it lacks a purpose, so it has no function.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just using logic

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So what does all this mean bigbrotherdarkness? Should we turn the world into Hindu society writ large? Serfs at the bottom and elites at the top? However you regard "concepts", do you not use them to make sense to yourself? If you hate concepts so much - pull a Kanye, and just scream out non-sense. Render yourself psychotic forever since concepts apparently have no usefulness for you.

Ah - and that's where, for me, the idea of a concept as by you is being used in a folksy sort of way. You say concept - I say constraint on the processes in your brain. You think a concept is "something" - I think it is a state that coherently relates to a previous state - hence, to be coherent, is to "cohere" to what preceded the present moment. Concepts are REAL, but they exist as dynamical configurations of matter - your brain state.

That's it. You hate concepts, but clearly you use them - as you used them just now (albeit, incoherently) to make yourself feel better - why else write up a post? Isn't that as much for you as it is for the others who read your words?

It is only the Human which

dp

a reply to: Astrocyte

Equanimity...

life is life. Why take it to one extreme then bounce back to the other now happy now sad... all mentally ill in grasping tranisent labels or thoughts and clouds of some already created concept for an ego self as a total of all one has experienced?

Doing such draws a line against the furture of experience, that limits ones actual understanding...

My niece and nephew were very picky eaters whats this whats that? I dont like this so my sister knowing they loved eating chicken decided to alter the reality and when theyd ask? It's chicken no matter what it was... chicken and they would sit there mmm this is good chicken!

They didnt know it wasn't chicken... but later of course they would feel betrayed as an adult for being lied too. But was that benefit or just to make it easier at the time? Both... they needed to eat and well everyone eating different things at home wasn't like holding a menu.

When I was a vegitarian for many years, I would be invited to peoples houses and I never said oh Im not going to eat this that or the other I am a vegitarian... it would have been rude and child like. Of course dating other vegitarians and eating with their family they would be scoffing and fighting with family no dont make him eat that we are vegitarians. Yeah I'd get sick later not being used to eating whatever was offered but that's because my body grew accustomed to that personal extreme.

Gave myself an intolerance... and isnt that what forcing other ideals, ideas, belief and everything else on people already in personal balance or middle does? It forces one's own extreme or balance onto someone else causing an imbalance.

This comes by way of expectation and assumptions instead of truth... can anyone live up to their own expectations or ideals? No? Then pretty f-ing rude to expect or assume someone wants to live up to yours if one can't even handle their own isn't it?

So that's the issue we are all in balance and yet running around life like each other's parent or some authority and push our intolerance onto everyone else as the best kinda life ever... instead of the one the person wants to live as them... brother and sisters keeper aye? Well that's the ego saying hey be me be me accept me accept me... it's like hey accept me for me and poof you be you and I can be me and all is good.

Ideas of owning someone else? GTFO

What Is the Most Important Philosophical Question?

What is the purpose of our existence?

a reply to: Restricted

Drop the labels and choose drop the concepts of what is real and what is not.

Babies have no idea what a tree is what a god is or any other concept. They are a pure unadulterated being... they cannot tell self from parent until 2 years old, then sometime in the teens they try to separate personality... to become themselves.

Those called family like to try and prevent that in control... infantile or sociopathic in nature can't be alone and must be accepted... because being alone is torture from deeds and guilt unresolved... they become like a hungry ghost wanting a craving never filled.

Society has expections too... don't hurt or kill anyone, any activity must have consent of both parties... some families dont think they need consent they just demand and control like the helicopter parent phenomina.

When someone is under a parental authority from parents as an adult, or child as a socieity or government tries to play parent or authority then freedom to be an adult ceases to exist everyone becomes a child under some agreed supidity of labels and attachment unbalanced saying this is good this is bad when correlation is absolutely not cause and effect...

one's experience is never the same from one moment to the next unless one ignorantly believes it is the same damned experience... it can never ever occur again ever exactly the same way it is impermanence down to the the shortest experience of time at the so called planck distance which is a unit of time... of course shirinking down that small and popping out of the other side there is rapid expansion from one dimension into another.

This in experience is relativite to the single observer observing phenomina no one else need to verify hey this is real right? It is what it is that confirmation is a conspiracy to make it real in concept and not reality it is only an agreed upon existence.

So purpose? Freedom or conspirator to keep life not free which is an absolute impossibility unless bound by such concepts ignorance and illusion that any of these labels and names given to forms of contact as being real to that name or to that form.

It is never separate it is all in one huge mass of contact that is relative to the oberver observing it.

Not that complicated to rote gasp understanding of this, but to have the experience of it? Well have to want to purge it all but nothing is ever lost just the hell and heavens one puts others through without consent for such stupid things in the conspiracy of those labels and belief...

It is all a self deceptive mass of ignorance in that conspiracy that yes this is what it is well no it is not any of that in reality.

There is conscious awareness beyond all becoming or formation beyond all of that conspiracy... freedom. Of course in ethics one doesn't kill or harm anyone nor desires to control anyone not oneself nor say this is this this is that but in the concept of language and communication then one must use the terms of that accepted conspiracy to communicate by concepts when none of that is ever or even required to do so.

Extremes of being are utter stupidity even worse is placing them outside of oneself as not oneself... I am me cant nor dont want nor ever will express me as anything else. Once free who would ever want too? No one but the ignorant desiring to control someone not oneself as property or desire something no ones own or take from another with out consent.

Ideas of authority do this without consent this crap was like this when we got here and it is monkey in the cage why um well some get a banana some dont and some get the hose at any chance it's mentally ill as a society to do such a thing to each other and continue passing the same thing generation after generation as some accepted normalcy when it is not any normalcy it is illness.

Self determination free will... it exists choose your own personal attachments but choosing others to be in your life without their consent? No dice it is similar to rape but with concepts and labels and nonsense no one was asking for nor want... some may want that crap as a cloud of conspiracy... well then hell get together in consent but children not having the right to choose such a thing need protection from those thinking they can beat and mold them into anything other than students to learn from life itself as observers of it instead of becoming subjects or slave to the subjects of study or observation of it itself... and create things toward the future together.

Thats my personal philosophy of being having distilled all of this crap down called existence and reality in regard and relation to contact and the casual nexus in which it all occurs in all possible forms that it occurs.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I'll take the succinct route via Charles Fort -

I think we are property.

We are toys for Trelane, a sadistic bastard who feeds off our negative emotional energy.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Willtell

That's an interesting way of putting it. Where did you get this idea? The circle - or feedback loop - is basically essential to the living. Anything that sustains a regular form sustains it through repetition until 'entropy' takes over and the structure falls apart.

Interesting. I have run into that word before( entropy) and it is important to understanding this metaphysical system...

“The term ellipse which means imperfect circle, as opposed to the perfect circle, is the updated metaphor that replaces the traditional concepts of God and the devil, and good and evil as the human race evolves out of the age of mythology to the era of the merging of science and spirituality.”

It has the duality: Perfect Circle versus ellipse

It has the lineage and logic: The Ellipse is from the Perfect Circle

It has the remedy: the ellipse will return to the Perfect Circle when its entropy (energy depletion) departs by the re-inclusion of its missing parts.

It has the mythology( mystery) in that the Perfect Circle is the Garden of Eden and or Mary the Virgin and Mary Magdalene.

The Two Mary’s, the two woman standard will be the new symbolic paradigm of this age

What do the two woman indicate? And here is the great secret...Where are the two woman? Hiding in plain site

Jesus Christ IS the ellipse on that torture device as representing all humans trapped in this matrix- ellipse

And most of all it has the prophetic credentials:

APACO (E) LYPSE Apocalypse
ellypse

a reply to: fatkid

Logic?

You haven't said anything deeper.

You basically jumped to sophomoric conclusions about what I am talking about.

The Anthropic principle look it up.

If you want to talk cosmology that is fine but you haven't said anything I haven't thought about decades ago.

Anyway the most important philosphical question is "how should I act"

Deontology.

Why because a society that allows people to think needs a certain amount of order. It's much harder to think about fine tuning if you are always worried your going to be raided.


By the way your logical argument has no basis of logic at all. It's complete speculation.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Willtell

Enjoy that halo? gonna wear it as a crown or a ring...

Jesus and Solomon were here yet resolution was elusive


the next guy know one knows, know one seas


know one will sea...

see em cumin!


By the TIme

WillTell

a reply to: Restricted

I do not consent to the "we" in which you present such a thing. I have observed such and subjecting oneself to such ideas of slavery to another goes against freedom itself.

Your opinion and you are welcome to have it as your relaity but I will not be a party to such a conspiracy as life with consent... on your own with that I want no part in such belief that is real but not a reality I care to have any part in as a personal existence of being.

a reply to: Willtell

They have nothing to do with my everyday experience so they are moot except when one brings such historical characters up as a topic.