|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 3rd, 2006 07:30 PM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
I hope you're busy either changing your body to match your head or your head to match your body, because anything else you might be up to is WASTED TIME, you circus freak! SEE THE AMAZING HEAD NOT MATCH BODY GUY! BE UNABLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO HIM AS HE WAXES PHILISOPHICAL ON ACCOUNT OF HOW POORLY MATCHED HIS HEAD AND BODY ARE! FEED HIM PEANUTS!! FEED HIM PEANUTS!!! PEANUTS!!!! |
|||||||||||||
| Jan 3rd, 2006 06:22 PM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn | That's fine, it will be here waiting for you. Take some time to think about it and what you're going to say. | |||||||||||||
| Jan 3rd, 2006 06:21 PM | ||||||||||||||
| The One and Only... | Kahl, I'm not even reading that. I've lost interest in formalizing my thoughts right now... too busy. | |||||||||||||
| Jan 3rd, 2006 05:45 PM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
"Simply because I began experiencing with assumptions of causuality and the self does not mean that they are necessary to perpetuate experience. " Uh, actually they are. You see, if you somehow went back in time to change how you experienced your experiences, you would probably be a completely different person and possibly not exist! Remember back to the future? MARTY! Besides, none of this has to do with what you assume or how you perceive. Sometimes things that seem that way are really meant to be applied to everything, as some sort of prerequisite to it. Which means you often have to use your brain to discover that! The idea that you can simply think the opposite of kant to prove what he says wrong is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Two quick things that may not be true, but just for the fuck of it: BEFORE EXPERIENCE CAN EVEN BEGIN. Did your experience begin without it? No. We've already covered that. Maybe that's all he meant? Maybe he meant later in life you 'could' remove yourself from the direct effects of casuality(i don't think any decent philosopher would say you couldn't, otherwise human society would likely be much different-- or maybe it would be exactly the same :O ). Regardless of if you remove your perception from the equation, or your "Assumptions" though, your basic mode of being is still going to be heavily dependant on them-- and so will the people around you. Not only because of your past actions and past occurances but also because that's how things work. What Kant was saying was such a broad statement you can't really deny it's validity. "but one does not need to infer it for perceptions to take place" Right and you don't need eyes to see or anything right, or any kind of body parts to perceive? You don't think cause and effect even plays into your perception of the outside universe or your ability to experience it in the first place? "we never needed the big bang. I mean look, I'm not using the big bang right now. We don't need it at all!" "Everything that exists could be an extension of my subjective will, for all that I know. " What a great philosophical debater, brought down to "if's" and "Coulds". You could seriously debate any topic in the world using ifs and coulds, cause you know, you could just go on forever and you could even be right you know that you could really be a woman and just not know it? In your mode of existence, essentially existence is an extension of your subjective will. However, the universe likely existed/exists without your help. "I am thoroughly aware that I cannot provide evidence as to my experience." Okay? Here I thought you were pouring out your observations of the universe, not just pouring out bullshit you've pretund into existance-- Extensions of subjective will. You see, you're pretty much creating this little philosophical wonder you 'believe'. You don't really even know if it's true, you haven't removed assumptions at all. You're still heavily operating on them, including the assumption that kant even meant what you think he meant and that the universe functions the way you think it does... i don't know, that's a little obvious so maybe it's not good enough for this discussion... If removing assumptions means you remove yourself from the ability to observe yourself, happy new years. |
|||||||||||||
| Jan 1st, 2006 10:43 AM | ||||||||||||||
| Womti | isnt philosophy based entirely on questions? which never really get answered? if that IS the case, then I hereby conclude that this entire thread is fucking POINTLESS!! | |||||||||||||
| Dec 31st, 2005 09:12 PM | ||||||||||||||
| davinxtk |
He's a WRITER not an EDITOR JESUS THE MAN CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO DO EVERYTHING |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 31st, 2005 08:39 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Perndog | Max, if you'll reread my first post, you'll notice that I mentioned the head as well. Oh, and it's "body's", not "bodie's", Mr. I-Write-For-A-Living. | |||||||||||||
| Dec 31st, 2005 10:33 AM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank | Head, body. Head, body. How the dell do ou call yourself a philosipher when you can't even stick to the topic? | |||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 04:44 PM | ||||||||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Kahl, I'm not denying causuality anymore than I'm denying the self. I'm just not assuming it to begin with. This is my break with Kant. There is quite a large amount of evidence for causuality, given the meaning I grant it, in experience itself, but one does not need to infer it for perceptions to take place. Simply because I began experiencing with assumptions of causuality and the self does not mean that they are necessary to perpetuate experience. If we are not the tabula rasa, we must become the tabula rasa in seeking truth. You say that the starting point for philosophy lies in the universe. However, "the universe," as I suspect you are using the term, is merely an assumption. Everything that exists could be an extension of my subjective will, for all that I know. I am thoroughly aware that I cannot provide evidence as to my experience. However, my hope is that some of you will be able to see how this relates to yourselves. If you remove your assumptions as well, you might find yourself reaching similar conclusions. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 04:39 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Dr. Boogie |
Along that same line, I just realized that "Kant is wrong" would make a great T-shirt. Edit: Also, the only exposure I've had to Kant was his crummy Categorical Imperative, which basically says that a practice is good only if it were still good if everyone in the universe practiced it. I argued with my summer school teacher about how it was bunk, but he reminded me that he was only getting paid $300 to teach the class, and so the debate never really got off the ground. So yes, Kant is a bum. Also, Jack, your head and thighs are screwing you over. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 03:58 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Big Papa Goat | I just realized that this thread is completly outrageous. | |||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 03:41 PM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
"Just because occurance A happened and occurance B followed does not imply that A caused B. One could simply have happened and the other followed. " Yea, it could have. If you pick two entirely different events on the different side of the world and then write down their times and say the one that happened first caused the second you'd probably be wrong. Thanks for proving me wrong, asshole. However, if you want to take two relevant events to the discussion, like let's say gaining sexual experience just because.... first off, you'll have to have sex in order to gain experience. Yay. cause. effect. You had to be there to have the sex, the sex had to happen for you to gain experience. Self, causality-- all rolled into one sweet bundle. "If causuality were entirely consistent, the very universe could not exist. " Technically the universe shouldn't exist anyway, so let's just leave that out of the discussion. "I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. I have done just what Kant said is impossible." Cause: I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. Effect: I have done just what Kant said is impossible. "The starting point for philosophy must be the individual. Any other starting point automatically loses its validity." The starting point is the universe, the only validity the individual has is in the observation of it; which is entirely unnecessary for the universe to function. See, now you're acting with assumptions and perceptions again. You act like stuff you believe will shake the core of the universe or something. "However, I feel that for causuality to bear any valid meaning it must have a slight change. I will address this soon. " Thanks I had a feeling you weren't, but just for the sake of completeness quit posting until you can post your ENTIRE essay. At this point it seems like you're shooting bullshit into the dark. I'm seriously having a hard time even debating with you because what you're saying is so empty and vapid. "Irrelevant." You said we were born with it, I corrected you. Rather it develops by means of cause and effect. It's more like we're born with the capability. "I'm not sure if I understand your point. " The logic of casuality can easily allow you to disestablish yourself from it. "Only in the beginning do I remove assumptions. At this point I am merely explicating my experience. " So first you remove your assumptions and then you explain the experience. Cause: Remove assumptions Effect: Explicate experience. What do you even mean by removing assumptions? Could you clarify that, because you just sound like a ham. I'm assuming you mean disconnecting yourself from your perceptions or something. "I mean capable of being exercised in all circumstances." How could you say it's absolute and yet not being capable of being exercised in all circumstances? Sounds pretty unabsolute. "The observations are intertemporal. " If intertemporal were a word I might understand. "I don't understand what you're getting at here." What you think is irrelvant, that's the jist. "No, there aren't. That's technically impossible." Technically so is ridding yourself of all assumptions(read some kant &#^), yet here we are. Nothing's impossible, it's impassible. Your experience has ALREADY began, so you can't really argue with what he's saying. The self already exists, and cause and effect has already lead you through the experiences to today. The end. Oh, also, simply saying things are happening doesn't necessarily make them so. Otherwise I could say I just flew to the moon, and prove scientists wrong. Anyway, your argument sucks. I find myself bored, post something more interesting than assuming that cause and effect has anything to do with assumptions. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 03:19 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Noted! | |||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 01:27 PM | ||||||||||||||
| The One and Only... | Update - Just added a part. | |||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:52 PM | ||||||||||||||
| maggiekarp |
He'll cry himself to sleep on his huge pillow 
|
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:49 PM | ||||||||||||||
| CaptainBubba |
I want you to define "Worthless Faggot". Max have you seen "So I married an axe murderer"? I keep on remembering the part where the dad keeps talking about how amazingly large the boys head is. Its funny
|
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:38 PM | ||||||||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bubba - What exactly is there that you want me to define? |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:34 PM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
Your rejection of the Koan is perfectly legitimate. You are a westerner, raised in a western culture with a western mindset. There is absoluetly nothing wrong with that and it's exactly why most western zen is absolute escapist bullshit, doomed from the go. I applaud your rejection. While Zen is of interest to me, I am unable to practice it. I merely meant that the tree thing (and most Koans) translate poorly into English. But none of that gets us closer to OAO's new bodie's rejection of his head. I have come to the conclusion that while he needs to also cut back on the body building. In his particular case it reaks of self obsession and self love. If he is somehow able to see those pictures as anything other than ridiculous and ironic, he's self dellusional. A diagnosis I think is assured by the fact he shares them via the internet, as if people were yearning to view him in the same way he years to view himself. I am unprepared to view with respect the 'philosiphy' of a mind in such a state of dysfunction that it would post such pictures, let alone deliberately strive to look the way he looks in them. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:18 PM | ||||||||||||||
| CaptainBubba |
Yes, you would be right Perndog, if OAO's possiblity was correct, which it is for all intents and purposes in this plane of existence most certainly not by virtue of thousands of years of human dependency on the fact that when we percieve something it exists in a reality seperate from our conciousness. Whether my perceptions come from electical signals in a tank of fermaldihide(sp?) or from what I percieve them to come from doesnt matter. My perceptions, as are everyone elses, constant in that they recognize existance beyond themselves. "Hold the paradox in your mind. Try to see both possabilities simultaneously." NO. ITS A FUCKING LANGUAGE QUESTION. ITS NOT DEEP. THERE IS NOTHING TO CONTEMPLATE. KOAN FAILS. If I imagine both DEFINITIONS OF A WORD then it doesn't make me contemplative it makes me indecisive. The meanings we have for words are not amazing and mystical, theyre just words, and sometimes they mean two things.  Personally I think all philosophers no matter how great pretty much wasted their entire lives. The Greek philosophers were actually pretty lame alot of the time except for math and the emphasis on bettering yourself, and modern philosophers are just a giant waste of time. Do something productive assholes. Seriously, lets say OAO had a better case for this and people bought it. What good would it do? What bad would it do? It helps noone and fuck all of you who act like its worthy of time. It doesnt make you smarter either it just makes you sound more pompous and annoying. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:15 PM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
OAO: "he claimed that ideas like causuality and the self are necessary for experience to even begin. Kant was wrong. " 'Causuality' means "Cause and effect". In this sense of the word it makes perfect sense, in order for you to experience anything something must happen first. Pretty fucking simple. Also, in order for your perception to record that experience, your self must exist first. Pretty damned simple. Going further into causality it explains that in order for you to even exist, your parents had to fuck. Thus, a cause and effect to allow you to even exist. Go ahead and roll it back, there's plenty of causes and effects that, if they didn't happen, your self wouldn't exist(at least in this 'form') in order to be experiencing. Without burdening ourselves with the usual bullshit surrounding causality, I think that will be enough. "it is obvious that such conceptions are not necessary for experience if the individual can deny them and yet experience none-the-less." I can deny the existence of the world and yet, without putting a bullet in my head(some kind of causality), I'm still going to wake up in the morning existing in this world(probably). Although, that could be argued in some ways I guess. "I do not infer causuality and yet I experience." Again, who cares? People can pretend all kinds of things. It doesn't change anything nor make it true/false, just like your perception is just that-- a perception. I don't know who told you that philosophical ideas have to be held by you in order for them to work, but I think it's really holding you back. If anything, philosophy is something that exists regardless of if people believe in them(ideally, and depentant on the philosophy I guess). Just like gravity. "we are born with certain preconceptions, such as I, causuality, or logic." Again, the conception in itself doesn't matter, just what is. There's a reason why we are born with these preconceptions, and you must consider them in a sense of development-- or if you will 'causal'. Also, according to most anybody your logical faculties don't really develop until a certain age, so we aren't so much BORN with it, but more it develops by means of causality. "they must be disestablished in order to find truth. " That's possibly quite true. However, you still have to pay homage to your basic human facets that allowed you to 'causal' to what you are today. It's possible that, by the combining of Causality, logic and the 'I' you could easily disestablish yourself. Just by Causality and logic, really, the I's only there because you're the one doing it sort of. "And so lies the crux of my philosophy." Okay. "I begin by removing all assumptions, though I retain knowledge of language in order to communicate any meaning." Why? This makes no sense, you just sound like a pretentious fuck. How is language an assumption? If you were removing all assumptions you'd remove the assumption that you were even correct in the first place, thus voiding the reason to communicate your opus. " The self are those groups of perception which appear to have a common element of control: I act, I think, I move, and so on and so forth. Here control, as it is taken, is direct and absolute instead of circumstantial. It is not that an outside agent is controlling, but rather that the control is inherent" I wouldn't really call actions a perception, but Okay. Do you know what absolute means, especially when you say it's "Not circumstantial"? Everything is circumstantial, all the way down to you being able to post your opus on this message board. Circumstance. The only way what you're saying would be absolute is if you removed all instances of causality, all instances of self and all instances of assumption while still retaining the ability to move, think or act. Impossible. First, you need a cause and effect to put you where you are now, second you need your sense of self to realize that you want to move and third you need your assumption that you need to move in the first place. They aren't pure unless you're looking at it through some angle of obscured 'purity', and if that's the case what the fuck-- Shit is purely shit. Thanks for solving all the philosophical riddles of the world. "In my observation, I note that the more an event occurs in the past, the more it is likely to occur again." Not true, if you win the lottery once does that guarantee you a win in the future? No. If you are bringing this down to psychological and perceptual levels... maybe in some senses. A very loose sense. Through the power of the combination of self, logic and causality people can usually manage to learn through their mistakes or even fortunes. If you are talking about people continually doing things they know that work... congrats or something. "it is simply a tool construed which corresponds well to reality." You mean like how if you're posting asinine things you're likely to continue posting them in the future? Probably, but what does this have to do with "Reality" so much as the reality of your own self? How is "Reality" responsible(/a reflection) for you? I seriously don't understand what you're getting at, I'm assuming you have some stupid point to make but the basis of the point is fucking retarded. Occasionally, in some CIRCUMSTANCES things will continue to happen because they work. They don't necessarily occur more often. And in any sense, there's too many exceptions. Now, granting you the permission to feel correct on that previous comment of yours, what does it mean? What does it solve, what does it represent..? "The only reality I can know is that of my perception. Whether a substance outside or beyond my perception underlies it, be it mind or matter, is unknowable." Great. I remember when I was interested in 'perceptions' too. It's probably the most natural thing in the world to look at in the begining. However, there are easily recognizable things outside and beyond your perception. Use your logic of 'Causality' to find them. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:14 PM | ||||||||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
I think we're getting close to that "cannot be further explained by language" element... Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 11:21 AM | ||||||||||||||
| Deadsy |
 Tired of the correspondence theory of truth? Want to rant with astounding self-confidence? Dial down the middle! 1-800-C-A-L-L-A-T-T for all your collect calls! But watch out for my muscles!
|
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 09:57 AM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
A.) "you need to do something about your legs. Your thighs are like marshmallows and your calves are like toothpicks sticking out of them. " Calves, schmaves. IT'S THE HEAD. OAO has the head of a self important Doofus, and like the chains Jacob Marley wears, it's eaxactly what he's crafted. He needs to make fundemental chnages to who he is as a person if he wants his head to look like it belongs on anything other than a pale, gangly toothpick, or a soft, slug colored mass. Not that I'm saying body builders heads are anything to write home about, body building being the sport of narcissits and obsessive compulsives, but this combo platter (and again, I feel I must refer to Carrot Top version 2.0) is disturbing and nauseating. B.) The tree problem is a Koan. Koan's are not meant to be 'solved'. They are meant to be contemplated. The poser of the question knew full well that sound can be thought of in two distinct , equally correct in in the case of the Koan, mutually exclussive ways. Hold the paradox in your mind. Try to see both possabilities simultaneously. Empty you mind of all else. It is the exact antithesis of all this noisy, futile, adolescent I-Can-Understand-More-difficult-philosiphers-than-you-can bullshit. C.) 'Kant is wrong'. Gosh. What a shame you weren;t there to work with him, maybe he'd have made an even more significant contribution to Western society, or perhaps just gotten out of the way for the greatnes which is you. You really seriously think that you fully comprehend Kant and that you not only stand on the playing field but surpass it? You're like some bogus new age seeker/tourist spending a weeken at an ashram spending a half day pretending to contemplate trees falling when really all your thinking about is how uncomfortable it is too sit on a wooden floor for so long and then getting the idea it's a paradox and rushing off to tell the teacher you're enlightened. You are a chicken scratching the surface of things peope have dedicated their entire lives to. Stop crowing like a damn rooster. One of your teachers needs to smack you with a two by four so in that instant of surprise and pain you'll actually know where you are for a little while. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 04:16 AM | ||||||||||||||
| Perndog |
The solution to the tree problem is simpler than that. You need to go one level higher. If reality is only a set of perceived phenomena (which is what Mr. Jack is saying, I think), and no one experiences the tree falling, then there is no tree and thus there cannot be any sound. Definitions are unnecessary. |
|||||||||||||
| Dec 30th, 2005 12:16 AM | ||||||||||||||
| derrida |
two words: Calf. Raises. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||||||||||||
