Philosophy- Discuss Here

[dawnghost]

Originally Posted by Mystique1721

No where in that post did I assert myself as being superior...where did you get that from?

For example, from the "my, my". It's obvious you can read intention from style.

I clearly said I am human just as everyone else, and what's more, I'm doing what everyone does and looking for meaning in meaning itself.

I stated that in my response, but pointing out that you do separate yourself from others. Now it becomes clearer: religious people are an example. Though, if you want to be consistent, no view can be seen as better than the other, since reason is an illusion (read below, you state that). Or are you, perhaps, implying that there may be an objective truth out there that we may be able to grasp, even if but a glimpse of it? If you think you're closer to it than religious people are, then maybe that's why you'd separate yourself?

And no, I don't claim to "discover" anything. The security that ppl find in religion and god is thought of by many people.

You are shifting the security to religion, but in your opening post you just stated that there was no meaning, period. Are you attacking all forms of knowledge or religion in particular?

but in the metaphysical sense, there is no need for reason nor meaning.

Only in the metaphysical, then? And why is there no need? If you say the universe came to be by a cause, can't we infer the nature of it? For example, that the cause most be eternal in order to avoid infinite regress?

Exactly. so what's your point? None of this makes sense, but it does. A paradox, if you will.

The point is that you paint yourself into a corner, which is common to nihilists in general. You produce an argument for the lack of utility in reasoning, which is merely an assertion by the way, and therefore any effort in a discussion is vain and pointless.

And there's no paradox, it's clear that you want to argue against reason by using reason. But you can't throw the cake away and then eat it. Unless you want a dirty cake, of course.

to answer the first question: because it is philosophy!

Is that it? So philosophy exists for us to pretend that we are getting somewhere, when in fact we are not (because there's no such thing as reasoning), and thus it's such an empty exercise in rhetoric? And it justifies itself in that? Wow.

secondly, you're not understanding my point. I'm trying to get through to the mass that things we have created such as religion are all weaknesses. THAT is what we should free ourselves from.

You never stated why religions are all weaknesses. In order to "get through to the mass", as you so humbly state (it's in these moments that you separate yourself from the others), your message should at least be based on something. It is not.

Not necessarily reason itself. Reason is an illusion, yes (just as existence itself, but that's another topic perhaps), but we can't live any other way. We are rational beings. It is when we come up with the man-made concepts in this world, such as the concept of god, that makes us weak. That is one of our downfalls as man.

This is where you blur your entire argument. Let's see then.

1) We should free ourselves from illusions;
2) Reason is an illusion;
3) But we CAN'T get rid of reason because we are "rational" beings;
4) Since reason is an illusion, we come up with concepts such as God;
5) Concepts such as God makes us weak.

Really, what was that? What a mess! What does being "rational" mean to you? I feel that if I enter an argument with you and manage to prove that God exists, you'll still disregard any logical reasoning I offer to back the conclusion up simply because, well, everything is an illusion. In fact, the only thing that doesn't seem to be an illusion for you is that religion makes people weak, but ironically you haven't provided any, well, REASONING for that yet!

I'd be willing to bet, though, that when you want to travel from one place to another, instead of just walking there, you might be inclined to take a plane. Well, guess what went into the process of building that plane? Reason. Yes, it's an illusion and all, but somehow I've never seen a relativist show any deep skepticism for applied engineering. Guess human rationality CAN work sometimes, but in the fields you want to remain untouched, such as your a priori assumptions of lack of meaning in the universe, you'll apply instead your rhetorical skills to obfuscate as much as you can.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but one of the downfalls of man, in my opinion, is to purposely refuse to apply reason when, in doing so, there will be a risk of reaching a conclusion one doesn't want to accept. That appears to be your case: you're pretty confident in asserting religions make people weak, even though you don't even believe in the utility of reason (men use it because it's in our nature, but it's an illusion) and thus would have no grounds to stand on to argue for or against anything.

And this is why Neitzsche eventually killed himself.

I certainly respect Nietzsche for his honesty. Honest atheists like him are hard to see. The vast majority of atheists everywhere cling to the illusion of virtue in good deeds, while he at least rejected everything that didn't fit his worldview. That being everything concerning morality as well, which you'll argue, if you're as consistent as he was, that are nothing more than a system of illusions as well.

I was going to include suicide as an option when I was writing as well, but I tried not to sound too fatalist. Even though you are correct, suicide does follow as an option and I'm glad you possess the clarity to acknowledge that.

you have the premise right. but in the conclusion, you seem to be confusing "reason" for "meaning."

I assume that, by "meaning" you mean "purpose". That's no problem, as I am sure you believe the universe was a result of no purpose. Concerning the existence of things, reason and meaning do seem to have a very similar, well, meaning. Unless that's not what you mean and you would like to differentiate, that is.

If you want to argue for the meninglessness of the universe, though, you should present a positive case for your worldview, and not merely assert it.

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE ABSURD. here is where reason reaches its dead end. It is defeated by the absurd.

I'm sorry, but maybe you didn't understand me. As I've written above, I wanted to state that if you believe the universe is absurd, you should present a positive case for that conclusion. Why is it absurd? Or rather, why are you sure it is meaningless?

And by the way, isn't reason an illusion? Can an illusion be defeated by the absurd?

[Swabs]

Originally Posted by dawnghost

There is no science without philosophy. One word: epistemology.

I am entirely basing my opinion on the single Philosophy class I went to at college It was bollocks. It just seemed like overthinking for the sake of overthinking.

And whoever said Psychology doesn't effect the world is a fucking dolt. Psychology is a science dedicated to exploring why humans behave like they do, it effects almost everything, it effects how children are brought up, how we deal with stress, even how the fucking judiciary system works (eg: Loftus & Palmer's work into how leading questions effect the accuracy of eye witness testimony completely changed the way the court system works.

Don't get it confused with Psychiatry... And don't just think of Freud either, personally I feel most of what Freud has ever said is bollocks.

[Undefined]

Originally Posted by Swabs

And whoever said Psychology doesn't effect the world is a fucking dolt. Psychology is a science dedicated to exploring why humans behave like they do, it effects almost everything, it effects how children are brought up, how we deal with stress, even how the fucking judiciary system works (eg: Loftus & Palmer's work into how leading questions effect the accuracy of eye witness testimony completely changed the way the court system works.

Don't get it confused with Psychiatry... And don't just think of Freud either, personally I feel most of what Freud has ever said is bollocks.

I know what Psychiatry and Psychology is, and well, Psychology has some interesting things to offer, a lot of benefits but it's not a fucking science, well I guess it is but it's not a science you can ALWAYS prove true or not. There's studies but they can be really flawed. I might not be making my point as well as I could but I'm too tired to care XD

[Mystique1721]

@dawnghost

First off, I just wanna say that I actually laughed while reading some of this; we seem to be going in circles using your logic which you think I'm using. Anyway, I'll reply without quoting everything seperately.

-the "my, my" was clearly balanced with the "But then again, we are all human, all too human," where I clearly acknowledge myself as just another human as well. (But if you wish to see my argument as arrogant, so be it).

-I have noticed that you keep referring to reason as an illusion. I never directly said that in my first post, but that is what you have inferred. So perhaps I should be a little more clear, and this will include a little more of my own personal philosophy to clear things up for you:
I don't believe in knowledge and I don't believe in existence. But I do differentiate between the physical world and metaphysical world. So physically, yes, I would say we're here (don't really want to use the word exist). And physically, reason works for us. Not as an illusion, but as logic. But metaphysically, there is no such thing as existence and there is no point to reason when there is nothing to gain. So when you ask if I'm trying to attain an objective truth, the answer is no I'm not. Or yet, I would say, "the truth is, there is no truth." And YES this is a paradox, by definition, but within the context of my philosophy.

-Please stop saying that I'm separating myself. I understand that my philosophy differs from others, but I'm not intentionally creating a hierarchy here, you are.

-I'm not shifting from "security" to "religion." I am saying that religion is an example of the security created/needed by people. And yes, I'm attacking all forms of knowledge. Even though I know knowledge "works" in our physical world (like you said the engineering of a plane), it doesn't work spiritually or above the physical aspects.

-The universe has not come to be by a cause...and I do not believe there to be a cause FOR it.

-You say, "And there's no paradox, it's clear that you want to argue against reason by using reason." Check again, a paradox can be a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

-I wouldn't call philosophy an empty exercise in rhetoric. I feel that it satisfies our minds. But in the long run, of course we don't get anywhere. What are your thoughts on this? Where exactly do you feel we go with the discussion of philosophy. What are people searching for in spirituality?

-Look, when I say things like "get through to the mass," I am only speaking objectively. I don't mean to sound superior as you keep maligning me to be.

-Religions are weak because they are man-made concepts used to fill some kind of a void that the human "soul" feels. I don't know why and from where this void came to be in the first place. Here I will admit that those who do not feel this void are the stronger of mankind. And maybe some do feel it, but it's not a negative thing as society makes it to be.

This is where you blur your entire argument. Let's see then.

1) We should free ourselves from illusions;
2) Reason is an illusion;
3) But we CAN'T get rid of reason because we are "rational" beings;
4) Since reason is an illusion, we come up with concepts such as God;
5) Concepts such as God makes us weak.

the first 4 of these premises are not what I think. Read above about my personal philosophy, that'll help explain a bit more, I hope.

-Yes, I would disagree with you even if you came up with a proof for god's existence. Because that is a metaphysical matter, and I've said, I don't believe in anything when it comes to that. If however, you showed me a proof of how 2 + 2 = 4, I will agree. Or even a proof of how it is possible for a rocket to launch into space. These are physical matters.

-My argument being a priori is correct. It is not linked to experience, it is above that. And I think what you are confusing me arguing for is the a posteriori, although you know my argument is a priori. So just know that I am arguing for the a priori as well. Knowledge works for the a posteriori, not for the a priori.

-To differentiate between "meaning" and "reason:" I mean reason as a synonym for logic and "meaning" as something someone looks for, not really as a purpose, but meaning that satisfies a thirst.

-If by positive case you mean that I should construct a proof, well I've never even thought of doing that...and I don't think it fits in the context of my philosophy since I am arguing that overall, there is no such thing as knowledge nor existence.

- (speaking metaphysically here) I am not sure that the universe is absurd. And this, ironically works in my favor. Because nobody is sure about anything and everyone constantly looks for meaning, when meaning itself is man-made. And just the fact that this is the case, there exists nothing, or nothingness.

-And if the world is absurd, as I'm proposing it is, nothing can truly exist in it. Therefore, illusion itself doesn't exist.

[-[chop]-]

Head hurts *leaves*

[happilemon]

Originally Posted by Heartless_Name

I know what Psychiatry and Psychology is, and well, Psychology has some interesting things to offer, a lot of benefits but it's not a fucking science, well I guess it is but it's not a science you can ALWAYS prove true or not. There's studies but they can be really flawed. I might not be making my point as well as I could but I'm too tired to care XD

You said yourself that the value of philosophy was that it is exploratory, an attempt to find meaning,and that this effort has laid the basis for modern understanding. Philosophy is essentially subjective thought on the part of its proponents no matter how objective it aims to be. So it's no more an infallible and 'flawless' science than psychology which lays down its foundations through analysis and interpretation of thought. These disciplines shouldn't be pitted up in contention against each other in terms of value and usefulness in comprehending our existence.
The mechanics of how the human mind works are just as interesting and as influential in how we view our place in the world and our own experiences of life as philosophic interpretations.

[spirit crusher]

Originally Posted by dawnghost

I certainly respect Nietzsche for his honesty. Honest atheists like him are hard to see. The vast majority of atheists everywhere cling to the illusion of virtue in good deeds, while he at least rejected everything that didn't fit his worldview. That being everything concerning morality as well, which you'll argue, if you're as consistent as he was, that are nothing more than a system of illusions as well.

When was secular humanism a bad thing apart from being a huge thorn in the side of theists?

[Swabs]

Originally Posted by Heartless_Name

I know what Psychiatry and Psychology is, and well, Psychology has some interesting things to offer, a lot of benefits but it's not a fucking science, well I guess it is but it's not a science you can ALWAYS prove true or not. There's studies but they can be really flawed. I might not be making my point as well as I could but I'm too tired to care XD

Lol no. Sorry but but Psychological studies are more uptight about ecological validity, ethical methods of research and reliable supported findings than anything else. It's a Science.

[KillerGon]

Has anyone ever felt like maybe there's something more? Not like religion or philosophy or any of that bullshit... Just something more.