Philosophy

[$?wii?$]

White-Wolf when you said rather than being told and persuaded... that is true. alot of people dont have freedom to choose what they want to do because of the pressure from there parents.

i am a muslim but not a very strong one{i even get pissed } but i do think that islam is very close to science just listen to talks by Zakhir Naik and i can garauntee he will convince you...

 

[White-Wolf]

That’s ok. I see a logic flaw in 3 major religions all claiming that god says only they are right while the other two are wrong. Its like a doppelganger logic error. What ones the real one?

Islam was created because Abraham? had 2 suns and no one knows what sun was the one in the prophecy. So at that point Judaism split. around 0 bc/ad another group called Christians arose because they claim god made a errata to life itself. Well they all say they are right and all have proof that they are right, so I must assume all are right, or none are right? i mean logicly i cant pick one because they all have a little bit of fact to them, and all have a good persuasive argument. Hell if i have 3 wiis to choose from, in 3 different boxes, no choice is the wrong choice, but if all the boxes say the other 2 boxes doesn’t include a wii what do i do?

I think each has very good lines and teachings, but prescribing to one fully is missing the bigger picture, and missing out on what the others have to offer. all of them have wise men and all of them have extremists who ruin the words that they claim to follow.

So ok.... we have these 3 religions, now the complex part comes in. we believe something we cant see and touch, from a history so far gone, we cant fully verify on facts alone. What about religions older then anything monotheistic. What about the polytheistic religions. how come god didn’t set them straight in their own life time. Case and point. Polytheistic religions are a hell of allot older then monotheistic religions. Does this mean god is a new god and didn’t create us? did we create him? Christianity trys to destroy science because their isn’t really a answer except for maybe the tower of Babylon argument, and but then you open a can of warms again. God wants us to be different from each other or he is a jackass and afraid we will become greater then he. So lets awesome he isn’t a jackass. He wants us to be different and worship whatever we feel like if he wants us to be different. If Christians or any major religion rains supreme, we are going against the wishes of god are we not?

So this makes me think Its about goodness and not about what flavor of goodness that you prescribe to. Thus the idea Jesus or any religion is absolute is lafable as it will just create another tower of Babylon.

lets say one religion is correct and its Christianity this time. Well what happens to a Buddhist on Tibet before it was discovered but after 0 ad? does he go to hell. if he goes to purgatory, is this right? This inches towards my trinity argument in another thread about if god can be good, powerful and knowable at the same time. I will post it if i can find it again. I wouldn’t want to restart it here.

I believe that religions like Christianity want converts not because they want people saved, but because it affirms their idea. If more people think and believe what they do, its easier to have faith in something that cant be seen.

I also have to wonder, if Christianity is the one true religion, how come there are so many religious sects. If it’s the one true religion?, wouldn’t their be only one version?

But now you can see my dilemma… and why i have decided that learning philosophy is a much better alternative to religion. As religion is almost all or no other, while philosophy is more like science, and it’s only the truth until a better truth comes along.

Sorry to get this on religion… philosophy has a distinct trait that if you talk about long enough, it will intertwine with religion and come full circle.

I think Gorge Carlen is pretty good philosopher.

 

[ABC]

"TO BEEEEEE or NOT to BEEEEE... That is thee QuestioN!"

 

[Inspire]

Absolute truth is a totality of logic. To say that all truth is relative is to say that relativism is absolutely relativistic, which is contradictory. Of course, you could deny the very foundations of logic and get away with it, but then you'd have nothing - not relativism.

It's analogous to why topologists don't really do a whole lot with Non-Hausdorff spaces. There's nothing that can really be said about them because they lack any structure.

====

To say that philosophy relies solely on logic and reason is a little off the mark. Logic and reason can't do a thing until you accept some axioms or premises. Without these, there's nothing to talk about. So, philosophy must take these axioms on faith.

 

[White-Wolf]

The idea that truth is 100% relative i think is wrong. Everyone knows what a triangle is, just depending on where we are, we call it something different.

The idea of a triangle is perfect. It is the highest form of truth. Everyone in the universe can agree what a triangle looks like. It is absolute truth. We will always recognize a triangle and their will be no dispute on if something in the real world is or is not a triangle.


If we replace triangle with love or god, things get infinitely more complex. We find that in the real world, it is far too complex to find an absolute love. Even as a idea its not as solid as a triangle. We know that our parents should love us, and we sometimes know what is or is not love, but at times its fuzzy. If you give a bum on the street 10$ was that a loving gesture? It may seem that yes it was loving, but now he goes and buys some crack and dies from that charity. It doesn’t even have to be at such an extreme. You give a guy on the street 10$. He buys food, you find him the next day and expects another 10$. Your charity has made him dependent on you for his well being. What if you didn’t give him that 10$? Maybe he would have found a job, but you still dident give direct help when it was needed.

A philosophers ultimate dream is to find an equation to things like love and god that cannot be argued or contradicted and is a absolute truth much in the way how a triangle is a triangle. Most likely these questions can never have a true complete answer, but philosophers still try and they do come pretty close. Some say only god knows the true equations… or maybe its so simple that we just overlooked it.

 

[linkzeldagame]

I guess what I can glean from your statement, white-wolf, is the premise of choice in our lives.

The triangle you mentioned has its own religious connotations - for example in Christianity, Hinduism etc have the 'trinity' symbol. Three as one.

Philosophers have also argued about how we perceive the natural world and they have found it is indeed complex, yet simple in design. Think of fractality merged into simple shapes. It just keeps going on and on and on etc.

Maths and science can guide the current teachings of philosophy and vice versa but ultimately they all seek the absolute truth - kind of a 'theory of everything' in scientific terms if you call it that.

I'm curious - how come you've expressed the concept of a triangle as a symbol of the truth and love?

 

[White-Wolf]

I could have said a square. I used it because its a mathematical certainty in this world at least. A triangle will always be a triangle, no matter what happens.

but you saw more in my post then i expect most to find. I find spiritual tranquility in the number 3, and the Zelda games have inspired me. just like meamoto said he came up with the idea of Zelda from his experiences playing in the forests of Japan as a kid. These are the kind of mysticle places that i think have lingering energy from fey, or are still active, they have kind of a hold and their is no mistake why fairies give life in zelda games. Hell he might have even seen a real one, but he would never say that on mic. i myself have been inspired by nature and the forests of ohio. I also wish to make something as amazing as meamoto has. So 3 it is. Also when i think of Celtic myth, i think of the trinity. I think the idea of courage, power, and wisdom make for a better trinity concept then god the father, sun and holy spirit but i do respect it as a symbol of 3.

I don’t think it’s healthy to lead a life devoid of spirituality, but i think that religions take to strong of a stance on things, and forget that they don’t know everything. They confuse believing with knowing when they don’t really know, they believe. Believes are wonderful but when they become something knowing it turns into what it is today. people die for that.

I think this is because we don’t and may never know. I think that the journey to truth is more impotent then the truth itself.

If you can’t tell already, I'm pretty torn between Buddhism, witchcraft and druidic. I think it’s because those would be the last people to show up on my door and ask my to join their beliefs.

*edited for clarity*

 

[Inspire]

Geometric shapes change appearances depending on how you define the terms point and line - and let's not forget about non-euclidean (elliptical and hyberbolic) geometries.

So, while the definition of a triangle may seem concrete, it uses some fairly flexible terms and principles and can look very different depending on where you're coming from. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a triangle in a euclidean geometry isn't necessarily a triangle in a hyperbolic geometry. My point is that even mathematics is not as absolute as we'd like to think; it too, has a starting point which must be assumed or taken for granted.

The problem I stated above stems from how we define basic things. In philosophy, we often talk about moral issues, and thus, we find it necessary to define terms like 'good' and 'right'. In fact, this has been the crux of philosphy for millenia, and it is an issue that extends to all knowledge, not just philosophy.

What I'm driving at is that it is necessary to have faith in some first principle no matter how you believe - pure science, Christianity, those Hale-Bopp folks, etc. Some bodies of thought are inconsistent, and that's why we don't like the preachers with a $5 million summer home or the Mathematician that tries to find an absolute value for Pi (Circle-squarers) or the Chiropractor that thinks he can cure the common cold by cracking your back.

Everybody believes in something - even nothing is a something.

 

[Shade]

I do not believe that there is any thing truly good or evil, at least not on this plane of reality.

The triangle is the most well-balanced geometric shape in this world. It is in fact, truly whole. All the points of a triangle relate in some way with each other. The triangle is absolute because of this. In a square, two points will never interact with each other. Same goes with other, more complex, shapes and forms.
Sky, water, land. Courage, Power, Wisdom. Hotdogs, hamburgers, tacos. It all balances out in the end.

 

[Inspire]

What I get from what you said is that a triangle is the most well-balanced, whole and absolute geomteric shape simply because from any point, you can access the other points via the sides. The premise is correct, and I suppose the conclusion can be as well - depending on what you mean by well-balanced, whole, and absolute. I personally don't see this property as much more than a novelty.

I look at it from a mathematical perspective (because I'm a mathematician / statistician). A triangle doesn't even have to be constructed out of 'lines' in the traditional sense (think of Poincare's hyberbolic geometry). A triangle doesn't always have exactly 180 degrees as the sum of its interior angles, either. An example is to imagine flying from boston to atlanta to new orleans to boston - you make a triangle, but it's very different from a triangle you'd draw on paper. This is because the surface of the Earth is an elliptical geometry.

There are certainly ways in which points 'interact' with one another in a square - diagonals, perpendicularity, parallelism, same side, etc.

 

[linkzeldagame]

I do see what you're getting at with hyperbolic geometry. If you draw a triangle on a convex or concave surface, the angles don't add up to 180 degrees.

One interesting thing about mathematics is that it is based on the square model. Imagine trying to learn new maths through the use of the triangle model. That's almost like converting two dimensions into three dimensions on paper.

Don't forget that out of a triangle, you can draw a tetrahedron. From two tetrahedrons intersecting each other diagonally, you derieve a cube or a octahedron out of it. You can also derieve an icosahedron as well. This is what makes the tetrahedron so versatile in terms of basic geometry.

I'm at university, learning statistics and mathematical 3D graphs, which are interesting but its nowhere near the level you are describing.

 

[White-Wolf]

I don't know if this has been confused in my posts or not, but i dident mean the triangle is better then any other well defined shape, its just a example to show how different a triangle is to concepts that are not so concrete, like justice ect...

Everybody believes in something - even nothing is a something.

Yeah, its kindo like in-action is a type of action or choosing not to choose.

Im afraid i don't know math well enough to argue about the two types of geometric realities or whatever it was that you were talking about. Maybe you could explain it, or maybe i will look it up can get back to you.

 

[Inspire]

I'll try to explain it when I get some time, I'm sorry I didn't take the time earlier...

 

[jssmrkingrevenge]

Mathematic dimentions of reality, triangles, circles, and spirals:wink: elipses and eclipses, planets, galaxies, humans, animals, consciousness, unconsciousness, sleep. death. life. budhism, judaism, and catholicism. MUSIC. ART. Hippies. :yesnod: hopes dreams ideas beliefs facts theories hypothesi Philosophy Psychology Astronomy Geology Biology Phisiology Chemistry Alchemy even Physics Mathematics

My theory:

During the earth's formation, an icy comet (most likely) collided with our forming planet traveling straight through bursting out the other side coming into orbit slightly changing the orientation of the axis of the earth putting is spinning on a tilt (key component) and over time gravity pulled the floating debris and gasses still surrounding our young planet in (most of it coming to rest on one side and clumping where the comet burst through creating what some might call pangea and the orbiting asteroid, you guessed it, the moon, the last key, as with the tilt in axis, to the formation of life. The abundance of Hydrogen on our planet is the remenance of the icy comet and another factor in the spark of life. Anyways, to the point: if this is true then what does it say for the meaning of life? Well it says a lot. I don't know if this would qualify as quantum physics or what but I have a faulty theory that I'd like to share. OK. So, fact: electrons orbit around a proton/neutron based nucleus. Zoom in, what I believe now is accepted fact is that particles called quarks orbit around a smaller nucleus of quarks which I don't remember whether they have positive and negative charges, most likely, but undoubtedly carry energy no? Zoom out again as I brin up chemical reactions and mellecular bonding and fusion and the exchange of electrons and particles and energies. I'd say that any object with an orbiting "electron" (for lack of a better term) has an energy that can be broken down and used in a variety of different ways fusion being one of the ways, as seen in stars. Planets obviously hold different properties than stars and therefore must have different ways of using energy. Back to the colission between said comet and earth; if a comet hit earth and started orbiting would it create a new "energy" or "force" or yeah (do you get what I mean? no? sh*t.) Chemist have proven that by applying electric pulses to certain elements known to be present in the early stages of earths formation, that amino acids can be formed and cell-like formations with hydrogen-based membrane could be seen(the electric pulses were to recreate lightning likely caused by massive storms that would be enveloping the globe as it cooled down) I don't remember the scientist's name or the experiment but I'm pretty darn sure I know what I'm talking about. Lets call this the planet using its energy. Now having a little faith here, and thats calling it faith I believe the universe is ultimately connected and if everything happens fo a reason then we are here for a universal purpose and will be here until we have carried that purpose out. Not getting into the infinite complexities of what the purpose might be or how we migh carry it out, we just have to have faith that things will work themselves out and whatever we do in our lives be it concieving another human being or buying a Wii there is purpose in it.

to put it short, do well with what little time you have here because you have one chance; right now. And thats it. I've seen a sig around with a quote from Gandhi "What you do may seem insignificant but it is most important that you do it."

And thats all I have to say about that... for now... yea

I'm wishing I had a cigarette... damn.

Goodnight wiichat.

 

[linkzeldagame]

Its still a theory. Yet to be fully proved. Sure people have proved aspects of it and they have put the pieces togther how they see it but it doesn't mean that its the right result or hypothesis.

What you stated was a bunch of scientific theories of how the Earth was formed and how gravity came in and played a role. Whether this is true or not can only be replicated by making a prototype of the real thing... which is yet to happen.

I find what happens on a universal scale must also happen on a microscopial scale. The bigger world recurs into a smaller and smaller world with seemingly infinite boundaries.

Look at Jupiter's 'red spot'. Look at the ripples it forms surrounding it. Doesn't it look familiar on a common every day scale with rivers and oceans and clouds? If the scientists can theorise ****, then if they can't replicate it on a microscopial scale, regardless of conditions then that means their theory has the potential to fail...

String theory or M theory kind of switches the logic stated here around. To prove its theories requires scientists to be able to validate it on a universal scale, which is plain ridiculous IMO. So the theory kind of is like the proverbial donkey following a carrot he can never reach...