Dank Memeston

Philosophy in your life

53 posts in this topic

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean by phony mysticism. I think I understand but would like further clarification if you could. 

 

I agree with what you have said but I do feel that creating the boundaries for the description allows for one to understand their own personal "perfect description", which is what you mayeat by mysticism, which they are not apt to describe perfectly. I mainly asked this queston because I feel the answer one would give is ingrained in their personal philosophy but that may be given information for every question and that I am just overblowing the importance this question could have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it by the second definition:

 

Quote

belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

 

basically people often use "grey areas" as either a weasel phrase or one to circumvent putting in the effort to make a concrete analysis of something and its peculiarities.

 

other times people call things they considered ill-defined "gray areas." this may fall under the lack of being defined i mentioned earlier. words have a definite meaning though (if they're not formed into proper sentence then it's not an ill-definition, it's no definition at all,) which is why i think its better to look at those things linguistically, or exhaust the various results and their relation to text in this instance

 

ironically i could have worded that part better but i think you understand what im saying

 

edit: see below

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Monahan said:

other times people call things they considered ill-defined "gray areas." this may fall under the lack of being defined i mentioned earlier. words have a definite meaning though (if they're not formed into proper sentence then it's not an ill-definition, it's no definition at all,) which is why i think its better to look at those things linguistically, or exhaust the various results and their relation to text in this instance

 

ironically i could have worded that part better but i think you understand what im saying

 

okay let me try this part again.

 

just like you can semantically paint over little black-and-white areas as gray areas, you can also apply that same labeling to something you consider ill-defined and with therefore varying results. while this remains semantic, i still think its better to not "plant the flag" and leave your analysis there, but rather continue on to analyse this situation and why these various results occur in relation to the "ill-defined" text. in reality text itself cant be ill-defined because words have a definite meaning and if they're organized in a nonsensical manor then it doesn't constitute a definition at all.

 

in the common usage, on the other hand, calling something a grey area is usually an end-all-be-all of a train of thought and thus "planting the flag" of how far you're going to inquire about something. since, as i've shown, this is useless and devoid of conceptual purity rather in the abstract or in labellings, i don't think it's ever a useful thing to do. so the conclusion is, in the thinking or in the pragmatic, there is no usefulness at all for the idea of grey areas, in common usage or otherwise

 

hopefully that was better

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monahan said:

 

 in reality text itself cant be ill-defined because words have a definite meaning and if they're organized in a nonsensical manor then it doesn't constitute a definition at all.

 

are you aware that lawyers exist :D

 

but in all seriousness,

 

 

3 hours ago, Monahan said:

 

while this remains semantic

and there's the problem. i think (being the operative word, i could very well be wrong) you aren't giving people enough credit; i doubt many end their line of reasoning at "oh it's a gray area, that's the end of that!", draw their conclusions at that point, and never open the subject again. i'm sure some do, but it would surprise me if it was the majority of people. if a person's mind got to the point of asking what a gray area is, it's likely to continue the process, barring external circumstances preventing that. this is ignoring all the people who are told what a gray area is and take it at face value, they obviously don't count in this discussion

 

it never ceases to amaze me how everyone speaking the same language speaks a different language, especially pertaining to minor nuance in vernacular, and i can't agree more about looking at these matters linguistically as they apply to the concrete. it does, though, get messy when you are dealing with the subjective abstract (such as emotional situations with your family), in part due to the aforementioned disconnect in language - and those areas are the ones i believe to be temporarily gray, until properly defined through both analysis and vernacular evolution. until meeting both criteria, it really doesn't do much good to think about those areas purely linguistically, because it doesn't translate. again, semantics, albeit a more important difference than usually applied to the term

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mark said:

Philosophy generates knowledge. Knowledge isn't a goal by itself: you can know everything there is to know, but if you don't do anything with it, that'll still suck. It's a tool. But it's the most important tool. When I say knowledge, I don't mean knowing random facts or absorbing as much information as possible. When I say knowledge, I mean knowing what's going on, what's important, how you can change things, why you would want to. Basically the effect one thing can have on another, and knowing how you can affect it.
 

I disagree. Aristotle taught us that the true nature of man is to seek truth for itself, for truth is "always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else" (Nicomachean Ethics). Knowledge is a goal by itself and philosophy is the mean to achieve that goal. Does God exist? What is the meaning of life? Is there life after death? The answers to these question might or might not have practical implications. But ultimately, we don't seek those answers to do something with but to satisfy our inner yearning for truth.

 

quote-our-minds-possess-by-nature-an-ins

 

quote-the-scientist-is-motivated-primari

 

946857.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree again. Yes, reaching knowledge can be satisfying, but then the goal isn't the knowledge itself, it's the satisfaction that it brings. I can give a simple example why knowledge itself isn't a goal:
Let's assume a person who has a great memory. He will go out, and study everything he sees. He will count everything, measure everything, absorb any kind of information that's out there, but he doesn't do anything with it: he's just collecting big data and stacking it inside his head. Do you think this person is happy? Do you think this person has accomplished something? I think not. It's not about the data itself, it's about what we do with it. And I don't think Aristotle is, by today's standards, a good philosopher at all. His theories are simply outdated. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mark said:

I disagree again. Yes, reaching knowledge can be satisfying, but then the goal isn't the knowledge itself, it's the satisfaction that it brings.

maybe for you


Let's assume a person who has a great memory. He will go out, and study everything he sees. He will count everything, measure everything, absorb any kind of information that's out there, but he doesn't do anything with it: he's just collecting big data and stacking it inside his head. Do you think this person is happy? Do you think this person has accomplished something? I think not.

how do you know

 

It's not about the data itself, it's about what we do with it.

maybe for you

 

And I don't think Aristotle is, by today's standards, a good philosopher at all. His theories are simply outdated. 

i can understand this and even slightly agree especially as his ideas relate to the "natural" hierarchy of individuals (which have some merit btw, but he took it too far in trying to justify it), but making this statement is a highly negligent generalization

 

replies in bold/italics

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mark said:

I disagree again. Yes, reaching knowledge can be satisfying, but then the goal isn't the knowledge itself, it's the satisfaction that it brings. I can give a simple example why knowledge itself isn't a goal:
Let's assume a person who has a great memory. He will go out, and study everything he sees. He will count everything, measure everything, absorb any kind of information that's out there, but he doesn't do anything with it: he's just collecting big data and stacking it inside his head. Do you think this person is happy? Do you think this person has accomplished something? I think not. It's not about the data itself, it's about what we do with it. And I don't think Aristotle is, by today's standards, a good philosopher at all. His theories are simply outdated. 

It's true that knowledge can be satisfying. But it doesn't mean we're not seeking knowledge for itself. It's precisely because we're seeking knowledge for itself that acquiring it can bring us satisfaction. If you lose your car keys, search for them and find them, would you be satisfied? The answer is, you would only be satisfied as long as your car wasn't destroyed in the meantime and your keys were still of some use. And you would only care about your car if you could actually drive with it. Material things are useless if they can't be useful. Knowledge, on the other hand, can be satisfying without being useful. That's why paleontologists are happy when they discover new extinct species and expand their knowledge even when the results of their research have no practical implications.

 

That's not to say that knowledge is the only thing we seek. Humans have other needs in addition to their desire for truth and those needs often come first. A starving person would rather have a meal than a book, which is logical since dying of starvation would prevent anyone from reading. But I believe that if someone already has everything, deepening his knowledge of the universe and its content on a daily basis would bring him joy and happiness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since we're talking about Aristotle, there's a great quote I'd like to share:

 

"If you should do philosophy, you should do philosophy, and if you should not do philosophy, then you should do philosophy. Therefore in every case you should do philosophy. For if philosophy exists, then positively we are obliged to do philosophy, since it truly exists. But if it does not truly exist, even so we are obliged to investigate how it is that philosophy does not truly exist. But by investigating we would be doing philosophy, since to investigate is the cause of philosophy." (Protrepticus)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mark said:

I disagree again. Yes, reaching knowledge can be satisfying, but then the goal isn't the knowledge itself, it's the satisfaction that it brings. I can give a simple example why knowledge itself isn't a goal:
Let's assume a person who has a great memory. He will go out, and study everything he sees. He will count everything, measure everything, absorb any kind of information that's out there, but he doesn't do anything with it: he's just collecting big data and stacking it inside his head. Do you think this person is happy? Do you think this person has accomplished something? I think not. It's not about the data itself, it's about what we do with it. And I don't think Aristotle is, by today's standards, a good philosopher at all. His theories are simply outdated. 


Obtaining knowledge does not need a reason, it just always needs to happen. Every moment that we "live" we are sensing and thinking, we might not be self aware of this but we are ALWAYS searching for knowledge in the simplest form as long as we have consciousness. To define a reason behind our search for knowledge would be the same as to define a reason for our existence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, SSJ Grumpig said:

maybe for you
how do you know
maybe for you

If you disagree with me, then disagree with me: but show me why you disagree with me. I'm not sure how to respond to this, since this isn't much of a response at all. 
 

7 hours ago, Ynusgridorh said:

It's true that knowledge can be satisfying. But it doesn't mean we're not seeking knowledge for itself. It's precisely because we're seeking knowledge for itself that acquiring it can bring us satisfaction. If you lose your car keys, search for them and find them, would you be satisfied? The answer is, you would only be satisfied as long as your car wasn't destroyed in the meantime and your keys were still of some use. And you would only care about your car if you could actually drive with it. Material things are useless if they can't be useful. Knowledge, on the other hand, can be satisfying without being useful. That's why paleontologists are happy when they discover new extinct species and expand their knowledge even when the results of their research have no practical implications.

 

That's not to say that knowledge is the only thing we seek. Humans have other needs in addition to their desire for truth and those needs often come first. A starving person would rather have a meal than a book, which is logical since dying of starvation would prevent anyone from reading. But I believe that if someone already has everything, deepening his knowledge of the universe and its content on a daily basis would bring him joy and happiness.

I can see what you're getting at, but the way I see it, when I say knowledge isn't a goal by itself, I mean it's not something that we 'must' attain. You cannot measure how happy someone is by how much knowledge they have. That's not to say we don't need knowledge: it's probably the most important thing, because it tells us exactly how to get what we want and need. 
 

7 hours ago, Ynusgridorh said:

And since we're talking about Aristotle, there's a great quote I'd like to share:

 

"If you should do philosophy, you should do philosophy, and if you should not do philosophy, then you should do philosophy. Therefore in every case you should do philosophy. For if philosophy exists, then positively we are obliged to do philosophy, since it truly exists. But if it does not truly exist, even so we are obliged to investigate how it is that philosophy does not truly exist. But by investigating we would be doing philosophy, since to investigate is the cause of philosophy." (Protrepticus)

This entire quote is nothing more than a bunch of contradictions. 
 

6 hours ago, Fullerene60 said:


Obtaining knowledge does not need a reason, it just always needs to happen. Every moment that we "live" we are sensing and thinking, we might not be self aware of this but we are ALWAYS searching for knowledge in the simplest form as long as we have consciousness. To define a reason behind our search for knowledge would be the same as to define a reason for our existence.


Saying we're always seeking knowledge therefore it doesn't need a reason, is like saying we go to work and cook meals each day, therefore we must always go to work and cook meals without a reason. 

I'm sure you guys can come up with better arguments than this to proof me wrong. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applying your senses to intake information is not a choice like cooking. You are using a false narrative.
Edit: I do know where you are going with this though, cooking and working is a means to survival. But surviving is a choice while we are conscious, while in-taking new information is not a choice while we are conscious.

I equate consciousness with learning and that might be why we are butting heads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mark said:

 

If you disagree with me, then disagree with me: but show me why you disagree with me. I'm not sure how to respond to this, since this isn't much of a response at all. 
 

i was pretty sure it was self evident - i can't respond with anything else because you are offering subjective opinions as thought they are objective fact

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Applying your senses to intake information is not a choice like cooking. You are using a false narrative.
Edit: I do know where you are going with this though, cooking and working is a means to survival. But surviving is a choice while we are conscious, while in-taking new information is not a choice while we are conscious.

I equate consciousness with learning and that might be why we are butting heads.

Let me give another example then: the things we hear, and see, serve the purpose of warning us of danger, of knowing our environment, where to find things, where our territory lies etc. All these things, these incentives we receive, happen 'unconscious'. But I think it's pretty clear they serve a purpose besides itself. When we receive pain, that happens unconscious, it can also happen all the time, but to say pain is a goal by itself would be rediculous: pain is there so we 'know' something's wrong. So if pain is just a tool, and incentives are as well, which happen unconscious, then we can conclude that conscious/unconscious doesn't solve this problem. Now you could take my example literally and look for differences, which you will undoubtedly find, but then I will just keep naming different examples till the point where the differences won't matter anymore. 

 

35 minutes ago, SSJ Grumpig said:

i was pretty sure it was self evident - i can't respond with anything else because you are offering subjective opinions as thought they are objective fact


I think it's pretty clear from a biological point of view, that we have 'knowledge' so that we can know what to do: where to find food, how to use objects, etc. When we receive knowledge, we feel a certain satisfaction, but the same goes for eating, listening to music, having sex, sporting, etc. So then, I would say: the 'goal' seems to be either to survive, or to feel satisfaction, or to furfill your desires etc. in general. Attaining knowledge can be one of these desires. But to say having knowledge is a purpose or a goal by itself, makes me wonder why people think that? I think it's kind of a dogma among some of the most influential philosophers, to me it simply comes off as elitism. These thinkers obviously have more knowledge than about everyone in the world, and they spend all their time on it, therefore it must be the best thing there is etc. But I'm not buying that. If anything, I think that the people who do have this belief are more likely to become philosphers/great thinkers, because they consider it important. Hence all the quotes posted here. But one should also note that the knowledge is 'useful', 'directed', and not random just for the sake of it. Having more knowledge isn't better: quality over quantity applies here. Knowing what the knowledge will be used for will help to shape theories and actually understand the world.

I usually don't use memes but I found this one to be extremely accurate: 

image science fan.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/08/2016 at 1:10 AM, mark said:

I can see what you're getting at, but the way I see it, when I say knowledge isn't a goal by itself, I mean it's not something that we 'must' attain. You cannot measure how happy someone is by how much knowledge they have. That's not to say we don't need knowledge: it's probably the most important thing, because it tells us exactly how to get what we want and need.

 

I agree that we cannot measure how happy someone is by how much knowledge they have. Knowledge is a goal, but there are many others and a combination of them is needed to make someone happy. We need food, we need love, we need safety, we need freedom, but none of these things can single-handedly bring us happiness. While knowledge can sometimes be a tool to get us what we want, it can also be what we want. We don't always read history books or science books to learn useful skills that apply to our everyday life. Most of the time, we just want to satisfy our curiosity and desire for truth.

 

On 19/08/2016 at 1:10 AM, mark said:

This entire quote is nothing more than a bunch of contradictions. 

 

What Aristotle meant is that whether philosophy is or isn't necessary, we'll still need to use philosophy to find out whether or not it's necessary so in any case, we will need philosophy. It's not really contradictory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayyyyeeee lmfao I wanna bump this shit up!!! So I will

 

I am an existentialist

There's no inherent meaning to life

Only the meaning to which someone gives to their life 

If someone doesn't believe that they're a stooge

 

I believe that human beings are biological creatures that evolved to a point beyond which nature could satisfy them

So now we all scared!

I believe essentially everything is absurd. The fact that I am sitting in my bathtub right now (which was made by some human being and installed by another human being) typing on a computer (something made by someone from parts of something idk) smoking a cig (picked by someone, rolled by a machine made by someone, made from plants that were purposely forced to grow somewhere) and posting on a forum (that someone did idk I'm done)

There are always options! You ain't gotta go with tradition. Try seeing how things really are. Fuck that it is scary ya plebs!

I also think that to be alive is quite simply just to exist within a certain period of time within history and future both pushing on you and molding you up!

 

Deep ecology is the best, but I ain't for no mass genocides or anything

 

Politically I say go anarchy! Go so fucking left yr off the compass ya filthy animals

 

No anarcho-primitivism tho. I wanna enjoy my life thank you!

 

Be a beehive of little individual bees!

 

Free sexuality! Free us of all gender norms!

 

The only things that should be frowned upon are those that could potentially destroy civilization!

 

Decriminalize all drugs!

 

Help > Punishment

 

Life is crazy and absurd and there isn't any meaning to any of it unless you give it meaning!

You will experience years (hopefully) of being completely alone within your mind!

Love will not save you, only preoccupy you from the truth!

You will experience death on your own and then there will be nothing after!!!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2016 at 11:18 AM, DarthChocoboz said:

John Hume believed skepticism was the purest form of philosophy and in that sense it plays a role in my life every day. I like to play devil's advocate to absolutely everything because i like arguing and thinking. I don't mind if I'm wrong/right/ out-thought by someone else, I just love spitballing ideas and stuff.

 

Someone like me who breaks it down to the most fundamental level like, why when you take a step down on the stairs do you trust not to fall down through an die, might believe trust is just necessary to live. I like thinking of things like this. 

2

I have to say I'm very similar to you Darth philosophically. However, I also have a strong Pacifist bent that that tends to have a deep effect on where I stand on things of for instance a Political nature. I also think you can't really put individuals in an exact philosophical grouping because the fact of the matter is everyone's philosophical I guess you would say worldview is developed by that individual and is often in a state of evolution and can change rather drastically depending on the individual's experiences and choices.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a while since I started this thread and a lot has changed. I have meant to reply numerous times but have always felt I could not encapsulate the ideas and emotions I wished to present in any feasible manner so as to such circumstances this reply never happened. I still doubt I could express my view on the world in any such a manner but I do feel confident enough to give a general overview of my situation ATM and to reflect a bit on the events that happened from the beginning of the thread until now.

 

If it was not apparent already discovering my own philosophy has been very important to me. This is likely because the issues philosophy typically deals with involve heavily with the issues I, and most others in the world, face throughout their whole life. I am trying to figure out what is important to me, trying to figure out what I look like to myself and others, trying and figure out what motivates me and also trying to figure out how I perceive the world, among other ideas.

 

For months I would change my outlook on and understanding of life every week but lately I have become less motivated to do anything at all. I've known for a while that I have fallen into a happy sort of nihilism, less pessimistic and more nothing really matters. There are some ways I believe will get me out of this funk, like actually doing something significant in my life, but the reality of my situation is that I believe this is what my philosophy on life is right now.

 

Regardless I did learn a lot about society and life and people and other things but the more I learn the more doubt comes up. I didnt read nearly anything during this time, mainly listening to YouTube videos and reading FB, and I started to doubt less which hurt my critical thinking skills.

 

Anyways idk what philosophy I follow if it isn't nihilism.

 

O ya, and learning about magic and occultism was pretty interesting.

 

Edit before I forgedit: the most important part of these last few months was that I have grown up in many areas of many areas of my life and this all did not happen without the people in this threads help. I know I'm not perfect and I am always still learning about and evaluating myself but now I know what I need to do to move on with my life and I have you all partially to thank for that. :)

Edited by Dank Memeston
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is life/the world/existence generally complicated or simple?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Dank Memeston said:

Is life/the world/existence generally complicated or simple?

I'm going to respond with a question.Can you give a clear cut simple working definition of those concepts in the context of your question? If you can't either something is wrong with your ability to understand and define simple concepts or they aren't simple concepts. To state it plainer. Why are you even asking if it's simple?

 

Edited by TheGoldenTyranno
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complexity and simplicity are internal factors.
At a distance most of existence seems simple. You can take a zen approach and embrace reality as a single landscape.
Up close, existence becomes more complex. You can always look one step deeper and deeper and etc. into reality.

How do you want to use your lenses for existence?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I already have my answer and was wondering what others thought. This isn't meant to be a discussion point, I'm just posing a question I've been asking people lately. 

 

Surely you can argue that everything has interconnectivity with everything else and nothing (not even univereal concepts like 1 or existence) is truly a singular existence by itself. The other side is of those who never give into the understanding of how complex the world can be so they live their entire existence with the presupposition of simple which is an equally valid claim imo.

I was using the djctionary.com definitions when j made his

 

Edited by Dank Memeston
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think and use for my life?....
 

I love living by "quality is the event in which the subject becomes aware of the object".
I like to pick things ahead of time that warrant "quality", then pursue those things.
For this life is made more simple because I compartmentalize and control some of its complexity. I'm allowing  in only what I want.

Sometimes life is completely simple. When I embrace my amygdala I just let go and "feel" things out.
This year has been the first year in my life that I've felt like I have had moderate control over how simple/complicated (easy/difficult) moments in life can be.
I just try to stay aware of my approach.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.