NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of all these religion questions and threads. If you want to put your opinion about something, then that is perfect, but I am tired of all these different entries. I mean we get it, we are not perect, but who said we were. We can try to be so analytical but take Einsteins case. His main enemy was quantum mechanics, and that was partially invented by him unknowingly. He was so pertinacious in his quest to solve everything, but in his introspection, he shut out the world, and over the years where he did get close to analyzing everything, other mathematicians had advanced quantum mechanics so far, that Einstein died ere he really evaluate and comprehend that form of mathematics. We cannot understand everything, therefore we cannot understand anything because we know not of how anything will react to everything. We are rapt superficially in debates about gay marrige, presidents, education, war, but are we thinking about what will come from this, like global warming, pollution, obesity? Sure a few, but instead of being worried by cancer and living right, were are worried about thieves and murderers inthe night, so let us all just breathe, stop to smell the roses.

We can enjoy that which we cannot understand, and that may perpetually lead to the understanding of it.

I am tired of all these religion questions and threads. If you want to put your opinion about something, then that is perfect, but I am tired of all these different entries. I mean we get it, we are not perect, but who said we were. We can try to be so analytical but take Einsteins case. His main enemy was quantum mechanics, and that was partially invented by him unknowingly. He was so pertinacious in his quest to solve everything, but in his introspection, he shut out the world, and over the years where he did get close to analyzing everything, other mathematicians had advanced quantum mechanics so far, that Einstein died ere he really evaluate and comprehend that form of mathematics. We cannot understand everything, therefore we cannot understand anything because we know not of how anything will react to everything. We are rapt superficially in debates about gay marrige, presidents, education, war, but are we thinking about what will come from this, like global warming, pollution, obesity? Sure a few, but instead of being worried by cancer and living right, were are worried about thieves and murderers inthe night, so let us all just breathe, stop to smell the roses.

We can enjoy that which we cannot understand, and that may perpetually lead to the understanding of it.

you are one of the smartest people I have ever heard. I hate debate on beliefs. In the words of a character from INVADER ZIM:

ABDUCTER ALIEN- Enough Philosophy...
ZIM- We haven't been talking abou...
ALIEN- (Interupting him0 Let the hideous experiments begin!

So many people think they can solve the world, but they can't, and neither can a million of them.

you are one of the smartest people I have ever heard. I hate debate on beliefs. In the words of a character from INVADER ZIM:

ABDUCTER ALIEN- Enough Philosophy...
ZIM- We haven't been talking abou...
ALIEN- (Interupting him0 Let the hideous experiments begin!

I miss Invader Zim. :(

I miss Invader Zim. :(

so do I... :(

so do I... :(

Why did Nick cancelled it? and why don't Adult Swim pick it up?!

Why did Nick cancelled it? and why don't Adult Swim pick it up?!

just another one of those things we'll never find out.


On a side note- I MADE MASHED POTATOES! If someone names what episode of zim that's from, I'll give you, um, uhhhhhh- a taco.

someone talk to me about philosophy instead of gaming!

I like the espisode where Zim replaces thing with piggies and at the end when things were about to blow up, Gir, says happily "Yay we're doomed!" I laughed for hours after that!

Exactly what you say Blue Leaves: stop and smell the roses. But then again, that single action evokes questions; free after Shakespeare: is that, which smells like a rose, still a rose only by the looks of it? So in comes some "philosophy crap" (you insulted my study:gundge: ): what's in a name? Think about it: isn't it a very human thing to keep questioning the world and him- or herself in it? May we not enjoy that as much as smelling roses? Can't we do both, not black OR white? Of course, nonsense talk exists everywhere, but blame the people who spit it out, not the questioning in general. Just my honest opinion:fluffle: .

Oeh! I forgot to mention our unescapable moral duty to try to do the best in all aspects of our lives. This implicates, amongst others, to try to solve those silly human rights problems...

I love philosophy, I just get tired after hearing 20 hour of it. It is a nature of mankind to question, but I find it a flaw that we try to solve the perpetual enigma without first studying ourselves. We need to shape our study so in our pursuit of veracity, we are not groundless within our predictions. We need to smell the roses, touch the roses, eat the roses, hear the roses, and see the roses ere venturing to describe how it acts.

I love philosophy, I just get tired after hearing 20 hour of it. It is a nature of mankind to question, but I find it a flaw that we try to solve the perpetual enigma without first studying ourselves. We need to shape our study so in our pursuit of veracity, we are not groundless within our predictions. We need to smell the roses, touch the roses, eat the roses, hear the roses, and see the roses ere venturing to describe how it acts.

Go read Hume then.

I love philosophy, I just get tired after hearing 20 hour of it. It is a nature of mankind to question, but I find it a flaw that we try to solve the perpetual enigma without first studying ourselves. We need to shape our study so in our pursuit of veracity, we are not groundless within our predictions. We need to smell the roses, touch the roses, eat the roses, hear the roses, and see the roses ere venturing to describe how it acts.

I totally agree, although I don't know what perpetual enigma exactly means (and I'm not going to look it up because I know what you mean with mentioning it-i don't want to get tired;) ). But studying yourself doesn't block out studying the world around you in a more general way. The whole thing is to keep it separated and not to think that this perpetual enigma thingy is an answer to ultimately satisfy all our questions; these are different disciplines. Personally, I am more interested in those roses by the way, but that's philosophy as well.

Go read Hume then.
He went to my university! Woo!

What I mean is that you must study everything that is tangible ere venturing forth to study the impregnable life itself

Go read Hume then.

Haha, contradiction or what? "I want to live without analysing the mechanics of it" "Go read a philosher who says we can say nothing about those mechanics or claim any logic in life, so that we must thus say we can just live with it" ---> [confused:] "Why should I read it then?"

was that directed to me?

What I mean is that you must study everything that is tangible ere venturing forth to study the impregnable life itself

I disagree with you calling life impregnable. I think living is constantly doing just that: into it, through it. You can't create a distance towards it and say, looking at it with some telescope: "Look at that impregnable piece of whatever...it's everywhere...o my god! We can't escape it! I can't breath!" (sorry lost myself there)

Haha, contradiction or what? "I want to live without analysing the mechanics of it" "Go read a philosher who says we can say nothing about those mechanics or claim any logic in life, so that we must thus say we can just live with it" ---> [confused:] "Why should I read it then?"

Because you haven't got a clue about Hume's philosophy, have you.

And as the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences, so the only solid foundation we can give to this science itself must be laid on experience and observation.
Treatise, Introduction p. xvi

If all you want to do, is to have an easy answer laid on a plate, then Hume is not for you, but if you want to learn something about what it is to be human, then read him with care.

was that directed to me?

If you asked me: no, it was just a reaction to AB again's post, not mean't to give you a role in it (meaning: I didn't compare you to the confused person)

I don't mean a LIVING THING, but rather the life. We cannot grab life, for it is wrapped around time, and time is something we cannot see. We cannot see life, we see something posessed by life.

Because you haven't got a clue about Hume's philosophy, have you.



If all you want to do, is to have an easy answer laid on a plate, then Hume is not for you, but if you want to learn something about what it is to be human, then read him with care.

Well well, I do know Hume though. As you do as well, you might have noticed that after his Introduction his story isn't all that linear. And don't you see that in some way it is a rather dumb claim (not meant to insult) that reading Hume is needed to learn something about being human. It's fun reading, and very rich, yes indeed, AND very cynical - should we learn that? I may have my own vision on mankind, and may just as well distract it from other sources.

I don't mean a LIVING THING, but rather the life. We cannot grab life, for it is wrapped around time, and time is something we cannot see. We cannot see life, we see something posessed by life.

Okay. First, you start this tread with saying we want to know it all too fast and that it's impossible; we should breath in deeply and live at a human pace. Now what do you do here secondly: you introduce the concepts time, life, living thing, "seeing life", possesed by life. What do you mean with them, clarify. For starters, I can't on earth understand what you would mean with "the life", as distinguished from something living. How can you substract such a general concept from out of nowhere (except "LIVING THING") ? I say you can't; to AB again: read Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology.:D

Ok, what I mean is this.
WE always try to understand everything, well, we can't. Now, I say we can't grasp life, but we can grasp a living thing. I mean that when I called life impregnable, I meant we cannot touch it, but we can touch a living thing.

Ok, what I mean is this.
WE always try to understand everything, well, we can't. Now, I say we can't grasp life, but we can grasp a living thing. I mean that when I called life impregnable, I meant we cannot touch it, but we can touch a living thing.

I understood what you mean. You claim we can't grasp everything, because as a human (and what else) we are always focussing on one thing or another; that is life. (Sidequestion, what is your definition of life anyway, you haven't answered that, and I claim you can't). But then you claim that we CAN grasp a living thing. I say we can't. Ever. Why can we? It's a rather big claim you're making there. Yes, we can TOUCH a living thing, but what does that say? I say you touch life all the time, inevitable.

Well well, I do know Hume though. As you do as well, you might have noticed that after his Introduction his story isn't all that linear. And don't you see that in some way it is a rather dumb claim (not meant to insult) that reading Hume is needed to learn something about being human. It's fun reading, and very rich, yes indeed, AND very cynical - should we learn that? I may have my own vision on mankind, and may just as well distract it from other sources.

No. I don't see it as a dumb claim that someone who has expressed an interest in considering the limits of human knowledge and understanding should be directed to the best work yet written on this subject. I do not have the arrogance to think that I an Hume's equal, so I direct him to the original and let him draw his own conclusions.

Hume's work, by the way, follows a very clear structure. Just most philosophy courses don't see this as they stop with book 1.

No. I don't see it as a dumb claim that someone who has expressed an interest in considering the limits of human knowledge and understanding should be directed to the best work yet written on this subject. I do not have the arrogance to think that I an Hume's equal, so I direct him to the original and let him draw his own conclusions.

Hume's work, by the way, follows a very clear structure. Just most philosophy courses don't see this as they stop with book 1.


Actually I think you understand very well that I meant your claim is arrogant in that you say Hume's work is the best work written yet on this subject. It's just that you happen to find a lot of yourself in Hume's writings. I choose other primairy sources. And yes, I have to admit that's purely based on the reading of his Treatise and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Should do.

Actually I think you understand very well that I meant your claim is arrogant in that you say Hume's work is the best work written yet on this subject. It's just that you happen to find a lot of yourself in Hume's writings. I choose other primairy sources. And yes, I have to admit that's purely based on the reading of his Treatise and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Should do.

You can think what you like, as you well know, but in this case you are wrong.
I notice though that you have the typical undergraduate disease of criticising the other but not risking anything yourself. A lack of confidence, or a certainty that you can not defend your view, which is it I wonder?

I openly admit that I find Hume to be worth reading on this subject, that there is much of benefit to be gained in so doing, and all you have to say is that you think this was a contradictory recommendation (without any justification for this claim by the way, other than maybe an implication of a complete misreading of Hume on your part). So who do you recommend that he reads? Yourself? What have you published?

You can not possibly base a conclusion that I find much of myself in Hume on a reading of the Treatise and the Enquiry. Hume never mentions me. (I am actually more Kantian in my personal views concerning epistemology and ontology, just Humean in ethics.)

I am tired of all these religion questions and threads. If you want to put your opinion about something, then that is perfect, but I am tired of all these different entries. I mean we get it, we are not perect, but who said we were. We can try to be so analytical but take Einsteins case. His main enemy was quantum mechanics, and that was partially invented by him unknowingly. He was so pertinacious in his quest to solve everything, but in his introspection, he shut out the world, and over the years where he did get close to analyzing everything, other mathematicians had advanced quantum mechanics so far, that Einstein died ere he really evaluate and comprehend that form of mathematics. We cannot understand everything, therefore we cannot understand anything because we know not of how anything will react to everything. We are rapt superficially in debates about gay marrige, presidents, education, war, but are we thinking about what will come from this, like global warming, pollution, obesity? Sure a few, but instead of being worried by cancer and living right, were are worried about thieves and murderers inthe night, so let us all just breathe, stop to smell the roses.

We can enjoy that which we cannot understand, and that may perpetually lead to the understanding of it.

*emo emo cut cut*

someone talk to me about philosophy instead of gaming!
The waves of the salty seas
are either white or blue,
The blue ones bring fish with them,
The white ones possibly...
Or else they crash against the rocks.

You can think what you like, as you well know, but in this case you are wrong.
I notice though that you have the typical undergraduate disease of criticising the other but not risking anything yourself. A lack of confidence, or a certainty that you can not defend your view, which is it I wonder?

I openly admit that I find Hume to be worth reading on this subject, that there is much of benefit to be gained in so doing, and all you have to say is that you think this was a contradictory recommendation (without any justification for this claim by the way, other than maybe an implication of a complete misreading of Hume on your part). So who do you recommend that he reads? Yourself? What have you published?

You can not possibly base a conclusion that I find much of myself in Hume on a reading of the Treatise and the Enquiry. Hume never mentions me. (I am actually more Kantian in my personal views concerning epistemology and ontology, just Humean in ethics.)

Yes, I have a lack of confidence, as a human, but not in defending my view. Criticising is always done from a certain point of view. I said there is a lot more on this subject-matter than Hume, to give some opposition to your propaganda of Hume. I mentioned Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who comes much closer to what I am discovering to be my way of perceiving the world.

Although it may have seemed so, sorry, I don't critize your recommendation at all, just say not to make it a claim of Hume-überness. And that part of contridactory outings was meant as a joke: all I meant to say was recommending texts to someone who wants to abandon the great theories and get involved in te practical life instead, so that he or she may read about it, gets in the way of actually smelling those roses. Of course I agree with you that one might smell more of the rose after having read and given thought.

"Hume never mentions me." Your argument here is not to be taken seriously I suppose.:fluffle: Oh and I happen to be feeling more for the Humean epistemology and more for the Kantian ethics. Oops, may be because I'm not fully graduate.:p

No, I have nothing published so far. My bachelor thesis will be on the understanding of ourself, and should be finished within a few months. Unfortunately, even if you might have had some slight interest in it, it will be in Dutch; I'm not that at home in English to make a more complex point clear. Have you published anything I might find interesting? Always eager to learn!

I am back on!!
But not for long.