Phatmike Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 We've got most things we need, so why not look at what we've not got for a change. There are a fair few people I'm sure who do a lot of thinking, and it'd be cool to have a platform for that to develop, be it metaphysiology, or epistemology, or whatever - discuss! I'll pose a thought; 'If I were in the zone right now, what would I do?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 If - ultimately - we are solitary, why do we feel the need to be... well... not? (Words escape me at the minute.) Why do we have to feel lonely - when we only ever going to be on our own, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I've just stood and cut myself on a tetanus shot needle. What do I do now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Griffin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I've just stood and cut myself on a tetanus shot needle. What do I do now? Was the needle clean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmike Posted January 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I've just stood and cut myself on a tetanus shot needle. What do I do now? Ask some more questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Griffin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Ask some more questions. Are paradoxes and theories welcome? I'd like something explaining... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmike Posted January 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Like I said, what questions have you got? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Griffin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Like I said, what questions have you got? Schrödinger's cat is confusing me, might just be me being thick but i don't understand how if the box is shielded, how the Geiger counter would detect radiation unless radiation was already present before the cat was placed in the box. Does that make sense ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmike Posted January 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Thats a very specific metaphor for something, I think much bigger. What do you think the situation is meant to symbolise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The geiger counter is also inside the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Determinism vs free will, discuss... Ironically, when this question is raised it tends to be the scientists and physicalists who insist free will even though physicalism/materialism is the platform for determinism. People of a religious or spiritual nature tend to argue for determinism even though that position does allow some free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-Addy A3 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Can anything ever be completely still? Can you ever jump in the same river twice? Edited January 1, 2010 by Sam-Addy A3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Can anything ever be completely still? Can you ever jump in the same river twice? -No -Yes Next.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-Addy A3 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) What about the tide? different water etc etc Edited January 1, 2010 by Sam-Addy A3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Because the water isn't the river, that is just water. The river is the continuing flow of water along a set route in the channel. If you stepped in and hit the same water twice then by definition it isn’t a river (as it's not flowing). This is obviously meant to be a metaphor for the problem of personal identity which isn't quite so easily answered because it's much more difficult to define a "person" unlike a river. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-Addy A3 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Well you're probably a lot more into philosophy than me and know more about it than me, lol. How about.... the only thing that is constant, is change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Would you say that fear of the dark is similar to fear of the unknown? Or is it more the absense of light to be afraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Would you say that fear of the dark is similar to fear of the unknown? Or is it more the absense of light to be afraid of? Like the vast majority of these types of questions it depends who you ask. The scientist may give the descriptive answer (something along the line of sight is the strongest of our 5 senses and thus a deprivation will leave us naturally afraid as this would be a useful evolutionary tool) whereas the spiritualist may give a slightly more in depth answer to do with the fear of the unknown and the philosopher may give a more normative answer on the nature of what it is to be afraid ect. Depends what your world view is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Like the vast majority of these types of questions it depends who you ask. The scientist may give the descriptive answer (something along the line of sight is the strongest of our 5 senses and thus a deprivation will leave us naturally afraid as this would be a useful evolutionary tool) whereas the spiritualist may give a slightly more in depth answer to do with the fear of the unknown and the philosopher may give a more normative answer on the nature of what it is to be afraid ect. Depends what your world view is. So what's your opinion then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Things can be completely still, but it all depends on wha you relate it to. Really, nothing on the earth can ever be still, because the earth itself is moving. That said, if the universe is still expanding, so is everything else in the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 So what's your opinion then? constant fear that some things always near Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 constant fear that some things always near FEAR OF THE DARK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 happiness is revolver made my day haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So what's your opinion then? To be honest, I'm not really interested in these types of open ended questions. I prefer to study philosophy that is slightly more relevant to everyday life. As my friend once said, a lot of the speculations of philosophy are 'intellectual masturbation" very enjoyable to do but doesn't really have any purpose or point. I'm more interested in questions of ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of science. Questions such as 'what is justice?' 'Why should I be good?' 'What makes an action right' ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If God is omnipotent, being all-powerful, then he'd be able to create a sphere that is undestructible (quite easily I'd imagine) but by doing so would undermine the fact that he is omnipotent and therefore would not be able to destroy this indestructible sphere. So how can he all-powerful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.