This is an Adult Discussion Forum of Show It Off Site If you wish to participate you should register on that site and write there
Started by #360796 at 12,Feb,14 15:16
Any other philosophy majors? Bored and would like to hear others opinions on modern period of philosophy, personally I think Descartes is an intellectual paradox, at times he seems brilliant but at the same time I find myself wondering just how much drugs did this man do?
I remind you that this is a sex site. Sex talk assumes priority over eloquence, literary expression and philosophy. In other words, I badly want to fuck your cunt. --------------------------------------- added after 20 seconds
Excuse my expression.
By #485312 at 31,Aug,16 00:01
yes, now that's how you talk on a sex site, and l love fucking too, well lm sure you know this already leo, 2 5leeps till my pussy gets destroyed, and l cant wait *lix*
I've never met anyone, philosopher or not, who is normal and who doesn't want to fuck. Those who don't seem to be suffering from something. Fucking is a fundamental need, as basic as breathing. That's my philosophy.
By #360796 at 17,Feb,14 23:12
Also, expanding on Philosophy, What view point, would you take? Empiricist or rationalist? I'm somewhere in between, leaning more towards empiricism than reationalism.
Lol, Works for me, Things would be sooooooo much easier.
By #231584 at 18,Feb,14 13:11
Empiricism lacks a foundation for truth because there is no "view from nowhere". You are assuming it is possible to observe reality, however indirectly. Therefore, science is not a "truth-seeking" enterprise. Most scientists you encounter don't realize this. For example, many would say that the theory of relativity proves that the speed of light is the universal speed limit, whereas in fact it only proves that the speed of light is fastest speed possible to detect via electromagnetic radiation. Dolphins probably have a "theory of relativity" too, only their "universal speed limit" is the speed of sound, that being the fastest they can detect motion via sonar.
By #444014 at 18,Feb,14 13:56
"Reality" is based on what your brain interprets from your senses. That is conscious thought surely. Science is a quest for understanding based on evidence.
"Truth seeking" Isn't that justice?
The theory of relativity is based on science not philosophy.
"The fastest speed possible is the speed of thought"
The speed of light needs a eye to detect it ?
The philosophical view would be to say it is what's known at this time to be a 'universal speed limit' based on human experience because all the instruments to measure these things we use are built by humans.
Can science disprove philosophy ,can philosophy disprove science ?
All these things are based on human experience.
I don't know anything about empiricism ,rationalism.
I only know what I know and when I don't know I will be enlightened.
By #360796 at 18,Feb,14 15:30
Empiricism is, basically put, Is the belief that experiencing things is the main source of our knowledge, whereas rationalism embraces "innate ideas" and knowledge through sense perception.
Philosophy and science are two things that go hand and hand, however using one to disprove the other would be a folly, as philosophy's main draw is it's ability to question everything and deny everything, whereas scientists, generally speaking, rely on many previous theories such as simple addition or complex rearranging of chemicals and such.
a
By #444014 at 18,Feb,14 16:43
"Experiencing things with senses"
You have to define "senses"
If I experience anger how do you classify that ?
It is an emotion for sure but I sense anger also
What does that fall into ?
Knowledge is the accumulation of thoughts and how you recall them.
So philosophy and science go hand in hand.
Which came first ?
Was it a philosophical question of man such as why I am here ?
Or was it a scientific question such as I am hungry I need to work out how to make a tool to slay an animal ?
Philosophy doesn't give you an definitive answer.
Science can give you a high probability of proving something that is tangible.
"The fastest speed possible is the speed of thought"
Is that a scientific statement or philosophical ?
Science does rely on previous theories but doesn't philosophy ?
Went a bit off topic but as I said I don't know anything about empiricism ,rationalism.
I will return with my ramblings of a fruitloop.
Keep up the good work
By #360796 at 18,Feb,14 16:56
Well, it depends on the time period of the philosopher,The modern period, which was the 1600's would, for example, be more concerned with matters of oneself and "God", because to claim otherwise (that there was no god) would get you executed very, very quick.
There's much debate, But I believe that we need to find ourselves and, more importantly, our limitations, and use the results to explore the outside or "external" world.
Sense perception, would go along the lines of Sight, hearing, taste, touch and sound. However among rationalism there are some very famous philosophers who first completely discredit all senses, the biggest or most famous being Rene Descartes.
Why am I here? Is a philosophical question, that many, through rationalism, empiricism, religion, and science, attempt to answer. The act of making a tool to kill an animal to get food, would fall into, in my opinion a gray area between the two, as a cave man probably wouldn't be interested, or have the capacity to know why a particular killing instrument works, aside from that it does.
Philosophy isn't as theory dependent as science, in my opinion, Because, truthfully, it's merely ones own observations, that doesn't rely on anything but your own knowledge, as, say, computer science relies on mathmatical formulas and theorems.
By #444014 at 18,Feb,14 17:18
I understand the traditional meaning of senses.
But there are more than just 5 senses in my humble opinion.
Sense perception is more than the traditional senses.
Some would argue that this a philosophical question.
But most would say it is a scientific question.
"Philosophy isn't as theory dependent as science, in my opinion, Because, truthfully, it's merely ones own observations, that doesn't rely on anything but your own knowledge, as, say, computer science relies on mathematical formulas and theorems"
But isn't science one's observations and those observations become knowledge ? ,surely that is why we do experiments ? To observe ?
And one's observations will lead to philosophical questions ?
Questions ,questions .........
By #360796 at 18,Feb,14 18:36
Yes, very true, however, most come to those conclusions using previous theories, for example, the big bang theory, or things as seemingly sound as gravity, Read up on Hume, He has some great ideas regarding skepticism, and our own relation to the external world, if an external world even exists.
By #360796 at 18,Feb,14 19:41
Which is a good point, however most empiricists argue both against and for the external world, if you read most of John Locke's work, it'll open some doors, Berkeley is also a good read, however he to me seems conceited and on some important points he relies on innate ideas, which, to an empiricist, aren't real.
By #428387 at 14,Feb,14 10:46
A great man once said .And I quote Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
I think poolboy was referring to the fact of remaining silent on this topic ?
I am sure he will correct me or explain himself in due course
By #428387 at 16,Feb,14 13:10
You got it Blue .As i know zilch about Phil Losofie or his quotes .I thought it would be wise to remain silent and be thought a fool and guess what I spoke out and removed all doubt .Damn I hope that makes sense sure don't to me
PS Was that Philosophical of me .
By #360796 at 16,Feb,14 17:17
It's really interesting you should give it a try, go in with an open mind and don't take anything literal, philosophy is all mind games,
By #444014 at 16,Feb,14 17:48
That Phil Losofie guy ..
Is he related to Phil Mycock or Pat Mygroin ?
By #428387 at 16,Feb,14 19:20
Yea that's the guy related to Ben Dover and Phil McKrackin .Ben's wife was Eileen Dover.
By #360796 at 16,Feb,14 19:45
I heard Eileen Dover was a nice lady, isn't she related to Mike Hunt?
Homer: "Well, the evening began at the gentleman's club, where we were discussing Wittgenstein over a game of backgammon."
Agent Scully: "Mr. Simpson, it's a felony to lie to the F.B.I."
Homer: "We were sitting in Barney's car eating packets of mustard. You happy?"
By #444014 at 15,Feb,14 16:50
I am not a educated guy so I will probably be out of my depth.
You say Descartes is brilliant at times.
And you wonder how much he used drugs.
'Are you bothered by the fact he did drugs ?
Do you think he would still be regarded by you as an intellectual paradox if he hadn't taken any ?'
By #360796 at 15,Feb,14 17:14
No, I don't know if he did or not, keep in mind he was active in the early 1600s, so most of that was fair game. Regardless some of his meditations are so poorly put together that they fall apart, he started deviating from metaphysical proofs and started going into "god exists" However that might have been just a cover so he didn't get executed by the, at the time, strongest power on earth, the catholic church
By #431354 at 16,Feb,14 16:50
drugs and comments ..... I am sure we will see a ton of "smart" comments
If you haven't seen it I would recommend a viewing of the Three Minute Philosophy series for a quick, light-hearted overview of the landmark figures -- here's one on Hume, with a refutation of Descartes' Cogito:
http //www.youtube com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg
Also, I kinda love Vi Hart (pun?), creator of Doodling in Math Class....
[just put the punctuation in the appropriate positions]
By #360796 at 15,Feb,14 13:39
Thanks i'll check those out,I like Hume's arguments but I can't get behind his skepticism of the external world
By #6568 at 14,Feb,14 09:17
By #328554 at 13,Feb,14 15:53
If you think it therefore he is...
I think he was a very naughty boy and he should have stuck with math.
By #360796 at 13,Feb,14 16:01
The Cogito was pretty solid, It wasn't until he started getting into his sense perceptions deceiving him, and as a result disregarding them, that he started moving from firm ground to sand.
--------------------------------------- added after 20 seconds
Excuse my expression.
'Whichever one is true.'
"Truth seeking" Isn't that justice?
The theory of relativity is based on science not philosophy.
"The fastest speed possible is the speed of thought"
The speed of light needs a eye to detect it ?
The philosophical view would be to say it is what's known at this time to be a 'universal speed limit' based on human experience because all the instruments to measure these things we use are built by humans.
Can science disprove philosophy ,can philosophy disprove science ?
All these things are based on human experience.
I don't know anything about empiricism ,rationalism.
I only know what I know and when I don't know I will be enlightened.
Philosophy and science are two things that go hand and hand, however using one to disprove the other would be a folly, as philosophy's main draw is it's ability to question everything and deny everything, whereas scientists, generally speaking, rely on many previous theories such as simple addition or complex rearranging of chemicals and such.
a
You have to define "senses"
If I experience anger how do you classify that ?
It is an emotion for sure but I sense anger also
What does that fall into ?
Knowledge is the accumulation of thoughts and how you recall them.
So philosophy and science go hand in hand.
Which came first ?
Was it a philosophical question of man such as why I am here ?
Or was it a scientific question such as I am hungry I need to work out how to make a tool to slay an animal ?
Philosophy doesn't give you an definitive answer.
Science can give you a high probability of proving something that is tangible.
"The fastest speed possible is the speed of thought"
Is that a scientific statement or philosophical ?
Science does rely on previous theories but doesn't philosophy ?
Went a bit off topic but as I said I don't know anything about empiricism ,rationalism.
I will return with my ramblings of a fruitloop.
Keep up the good work
There's much debate, But I believe that we need to find ourselves and, more importantly, our limitations, and use the results to explore the outside or "external" world.
Sense perception, would go along the lines of Sight, hearing, taste, touch and sound. However among rationalism there are some very famous philosophers who first completely discredit all senses, the biggest or most famous being Rene Descartes.
Why am I here? Is a philosophical question, that many, through rationalism, empiricism, religion, and science, attempt to answer. The act of making a tool to kill an animal to get food, would fall into, in my opinion a gray area between the two, as a cave man probably wouldn't be interested, or have the capacity to know why a particular killing instrument works, aside from that it does.
Philosophy isn't as theory dependent as science, in my opinion, Because, truthfully, it's merely ones own observations, that doesn't rely on anything but your own knowledge, as, say, computer science relies on mathmatical formulas and theorems.
But there are more than just 5 senses in my humble opinion.
Sense perception is more than the traditional senses.
Some would argue that this a philosophical question.
But most would say it is a scientific question.
"Philosophy isn't as theory dependent as science, in my opinion, Because, truthfully, it's merely ones own observations, that doesn't rely on anything but your own knowledge, as, say, computer science relies on mathematical formulas and theorems"
But isn't science one's observations and those observations become knowledge ? ,surely that is why we do experiments ? To observe ?
And one's observations will lead to philosophical questions ?
Questions ,questions .........
I am sure he will correct me or explain himself in due course
PS Was that Philosophical of me .
Is he related to Phil Mycock or Pat Mygroin ?
~Abraham Lincoln...
Technically, the saying goes back to Biblical times, at least; see Proverbs 17:28. I've sometimes seen it linked to Socrates.
P.S. This is a joke (in case this post is taken seriously).
Agent Scully: "Mr. Simpson, it's a felony to lie to the F.B.I."
Homer: "We were sitting in Barney's car eating packets of mustard. You happy?"
You say Descartes is brilliant at times.
And you wonder how much he used drugs.
'Are you bothered by the fact he did drugs ?
Do you think he would still be regarded by you as an intellectual paradox if he hadn't taken any ?'
http //www.youtube com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg
Also, I kinda love Vi Hart (pun?), creator of Doodling in Math Class....
http //www.wimp com/mathdoodling/
http //www.wimp com/squiggleinception/
[just put the punctuation in the appropriate positions]
I think he was a very naughty boy and he should have stuck with math.