General Philosophy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z Listen 23:30. I had exactly same thought long time ago... I read like 1Mill. articles about free will and everything that exist and i wondered: i never encountered this anywhere, now i did... I was expressing it little bit differently, but i meant the same thing: How could i choose my preferences before i was born ? Answer is: i couldn't, because i was nothing, or rather particles at different places. Which don't have will, or a brain to be able to choose. So therefore i couldn't chose my preferences before i was born, something had to be given to me first - so i could chose my preferences. So than i don't have free will, bec…

I have come across this new term from Meta Physics. An extremely renowned author in a particular book goes as far as to state the following "that reincarnation actually exists because when we die our bodies die too (the red blood cells) but the white blood cells carry memories or our souls of our previous lives into our next lives". Is this really true? Or is the author nuts or some thing?

Based on current scientific insights taking the data of DSM V and the Big Five personality traits as a fact should be in reach in twenty to a hundred years. To reach this we need to find a way to avoid conflicts as much as possible. First of all you need to state a common goal that can in democracies get a majority: The stated collective goal should then be having a long as possible fruitful life the least infringing on others. So you may believe and do what you want such as believing in magic as long as no infringement takes place. No problem. For then this should be judged on basis of the laws of logic, laws of nature, scientific insights into nature all within…

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I will be studying philosophy in parallel at university, this reading list might be a grandiose pipe dream, and that I expect with quite strong plausibility that I'll get through only a fraction of this list, hence the tier-system. Additionally, I'm already financially secure. Yes, I'm somewhat of a shallow pseudointellectual and my reasoning behind why these philosophers isn't particularly deep, as well as not being bothered with attaining actual truth or rigorous, because I love and like the diverse qualia reading philosophy provides for me, so whether such qualia is fallacious, "fake", or a false illusion or not is not my con…

someone made the comment "when you are ugly, don't play hard to get when you are already hard to want". OPINIONS PLEASE. i believe that beauty can not be defined and like art it has a deeper philosophical meaning, so it is impossible to lable something as 'ugly'. What do you think? P.S if you think the actual comment was a bit shallow and immature, you're not alone..

I would like to start a new discussion on the topic of what is defined as being imaginary vs what is defined as being real However for this discussion I would like for you to only answer the following questions and then to compare and contrast personally with others who have also answered these questions. the only rules and regulations of this discussion that I ask for you to follow are as followed (1) Post the answer to the question for others to see. (2) Compare and contrast your answered with others to find similarities and differences. (3) Do not question another persons definition of reality and/or imagination, this would negat…

I say that physically nothing means a state which is a space(time) energy, matter and information free nothing. I say that the mathematical expression of this state is 0. I suggest that the beginning of our Universe is that state. Everything presented in our common physical reality evolved in proportion to this state. Ever since anything exist this state is impossible. There is just One set and an "infinite" subsets of this set. Zero is a conception. A reference point in our current physical reality. I suggest that lower value than the physical zero state can not exist. Because of this I suggest that it is an ever evolving positive system. …

Reality: Mortality bears witness that we are the dream.

An observation is an act of perception, we perceive the face of the stopwatch. One cannot say the duration of the interval was 3.0 seconds without taking additional steps, for example is my clock keeping good time? the only way to establish that is to compare my perception with someone else's before the start of the observations. The point I'm driving at, perhaps not very well, is that we can never talk about science as being decoupled from personal experiences, we cannot claim that one person's experiences are "not real" and another persons are. If Newton were told "the time measured by this person moving at this speed relative to me, will measure ten seco…

There is, in my estimation a 100% chance that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I may die, it might be cloudy, there could be nuclear winter, a meteor bound to split the Earth could be on its way, but the only thing that could stop the Earth from turning away from the Sun tonight, and toward the Sun again tomorrow is some Cosmic burst that would be so powerful and violent as to blow the Earth or Sun to bits, in which case we would not be around to notice I was wrong, as the definition of tomorrow would be moot. and the burst would have arrived at the speed of light, with no warning and brought the turning of Earth, or the integrity of the Earth immediately to a halt. So no …

I have noticed in discussions of theories and God, that there is a reluctance to give the holder of the theory, if it is not "us" holding the theory, the benefit of the doubt. The tendency to put the same idea in a good light when described concerning the first person, a neutral light concerning the second person, and a negative light with the third person, seems evident, and probably has some basis, in terms of how we are "set up" as humans. I am thinking it may have to do with what rules "we" go by. The topic title was written by TAR2 (me), who is an Atheist. The order of Reality,Theory,God might be God, Reality, Theory to a Theist, or Theory, Reality, G…

Research carried out by myself tells me that at the source, reason and difference are the same; because of this, I think that perhaps the point of existence is to separate the two, but to do so without betraying principle. The principle is to not duplicate anything; reason being the removed means that it can't be the remover, the same applying to difference. Neither reason or difference can separate themselves, and so the removing force must be neither reason or difference.

It seems to me that the world is run by old white European guys for other white European guys and their descendants. European philosophy dominates the philosophical world, Eastern philosophy resides in a handful of books- Tao Te Ching, Analects, Buddhist teachings, the Vedas... Where is the equality of fair play? Why are European philosophical prognostications more valuable than this of the East? Or have white men so dominated the fields of academia that white domination over thought is seen as normative behaviour in a white dominated society and socio economic system? Can this paradigm ever be shifted?

I am blown away by the argument that democracy is not rule by reason. Even King James understood the people were demanding rule by reason, when he defended his rule by saying he always gives the people his reasoning. Past revolutions may have been about getting better rulers, but the American Revolution was about having a say in how we are governed. Jefferson explains this: If Jefferson is not talking about rule by reason, what is he talking about?

It's so peculiar that there has always been a lot of conflict between religion and science. Why do you guys think that is?

People dont seem to realise that they are actually OBJECTS, as opposed to real living organisms. Every person, at the most fundemental level, is a collection-mark me closely here- a collection of responses to a sequence of stimuli Even the tiniest action, voluntary or otherwise, of a human, being comes under that definition. (A Programmed Response to a particular stimulus x 1000000000000) = a human being Responsive Matter, you could call it. No person therefore is REAL; as to be REAL you'd have to be outside your programmed rules. To behave in a way other than what your innate programming dictates you do in response to a particular stimulus. Its kinda cut…

I was thinking recently about death and, while I do not support the loss of any human life, it is an inevitable fact that we will - each and every single one of us - die. Everything changes - humans are no exception to the rule. No surprises so far. Perhaps we need, as a society, to cease mourning the loss of each and every individual as if it were an isolated and encapsulated tragedy. It has been said that negative emotions are the result of our positive expectations going unmet. If this is true, then it might imply that none of us, in our heart of hearts, expects our self or our loved ones to die. Is it that we simply are incapable of imagining a world in which we no lo…

What is reductionism?

Is it usually just a bad style, redundant, instead of concise and precise, or is it usually a sign that a content is also lacking quality? I can give you one example (that I think it's an example, you may not agree with me), for which I think it is just a bad style. The syntagm "Natural Selection" in Darwin's theory is redundant in a sense that the word "Natural" could/should be omitted, as there is no alternative to nature when we talk about reality, ie not imaginary processes but real processes. As a naturalist, I reject existence of supernatural processes that may influence natural processes, and as an evolutionist I reject existence of artificial processes, that a…

The base for logic for almost 2000 years has been the logic of aristotle, which works on the principle of logical identity. "Classical reasoning assumes the principle of logical identity: A = A or A is not non-A". When dealing with abstract things, like in mathematics or formal reasoning, this kind of logic works quite well. But it can be shown that for any real situation (examples will be given below) this identity just does not work right. The reason for that is that in the real world, everything develops and even things which seem (temporarily) to be static, at the micro level changes occur always and everywhere. So this means that any real thing we can thin…

Few people know that. But the idea of reincarnation is millennial. In ancient India (more or less, about 20,000 years ago), when India, before the Jews and ancient Egypt, was already forming societies into classes, Indian scholars spoke of reincarnation (karma). In ancient Egypt the initiates spoke of reincarnation. The ancient Greeks knew reincarnation because of the Egyptians. And other societies. In the bible, either for preconception or interest, the word reincarnation was replaced by resurrection. Jesus, the Christ, spoke of reincarnation. The philosophy of reincarnation explains much apparent injustice: because one is born with cerebral palsy and other is born the g…

hi all I live in Russia I would like to know how you relate to money in America and other Western countries let me explain Relationship to personal money for many Russians, not greedy For example I can give my friend 5-10% of monthly salaries and not take back so many people can donate money to the needy in the street But I know that in America or in Europe, many people can not give money even his children,i.e. is possible to give,but return back is it true?

A Hegelian Dialectic is when you take two opposite and seemingly contradictory things and combine them to create something new, the thesis, the anti-thesis and the synthesis. I am attempting to come up with a compromise between Moral Universalism and Moral Relativism. While oversimplified, I will define each. Moral Universalism, people believe in a logically consistent morality, a morality that is intuitive, that transcends the subjectivity of culture. They believe right is right and wrong is wrong no matter where you live or what culture you were brought up in. While there is overlap, I believe most modern supporters of Moral Universalism believe all victimless acts shou…

How difficult is positive social engineering ? (the social network). Humans usually agree to disagree. (wars occur as a result). Try to create harmony among individuals through humor (as an illustration). We all know how difficult it is to share a joke and be appreciated for the same. (Good comedians are the soul of the party.). Think of how difficult it is to create a positive social group (or network). Why is it that humans essentially like to isolate themselves from the mainstream? Is it an evolutionary adaption for our survival ?

These are the two things created in order to control human ingenuity and evolution. I believe that the potential of the human race is regulated by some of its members. What would the reason for this be?