General Philosophy

Who thinks humans will survive the next 1,000 years, yes?, no?, makes me wonder, war, diseases, overpopulation, lots of things that affect human survival.

And if extinct can it come back again or life was just an accidental.

I have a theory that is so simple an idiot could understand it. If you can help me get this recognized, we can help change the way educational system loses out on the opportunity a child's mind has. Imagine a classroom with 2 highly trained teachers. A classroom that finds a childs individual talents and builds their self esteem. A classroom that has somone who can be a childs friend and pull them aside to see the error in their decision making process. Help the child recognize their emotions and subconscious wants. Make the child more rational, more like therapy than school is now. Teach children only fundamentals and basics then some things like number patternsor a si…

It is often claimed that something cannot come from nothing. Often this is just a colloquial formulation of the conservation of energy, however, it is also used as some sort of metaphysical intuition as a defense of certain premises in logical arguments regarding beginnings. The trouble with the latter sense of the claim is that it is a rather poor intuition. Intuitions aren't innate beliefs, but rather inductive inferences. This inference, however, is based on faulty information. Yes, it is true we do not see things pop into existence out of nothing (vacuums are not 'nothing'), but that doesn't help us. Why is that? Well, we lack the necessary and sufficient conditions t…

Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity. Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "para…

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…

If you know of inconsistencies between physics theories and observations, please post them here. This topic was created to support Robert Oppenheimer's interest in my statement in the "Introducing Yourself" thread. I stated that I have a pet peeve about scientists not including contradictory relationships in their writings that they knowingly are aware of. Link I selected an article somewhat arbitrarily from the internet physics resources. http://solid13.tphys...rnt1/par1.3.pdf The article attempts to associate electromagnetic forces between fermions. The assumptions provided seem to be contradictory, and referenced support is no…

A new approach to Paradoxes. Definition: y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true", and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y. No liar identity is Logically true. Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb) 1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption) 2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1) 3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2) 4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED) The logical form of the Liar Paradox: 1. x is not true. 2. x = "x is not true". Some values for x makes the liar Identity Empirically true: 1. Sentence 1 is not true. 2. Sentence 1 = …

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser1.pdf Thought you guys would be interested. I even stopped lurking just to post this. I debated about where to put it for awhile—psychology? But I felt that it would be more relevant here, for the type of discussion involved. \\edit The .pdf is a rigorous summary of how we define intelligence, and how we measure it. Also, how we may be wrong, and where our boundaries are.

I would love to have your views on how luck plays a part in someone's success. Please put forward point with apt proof. Also, if you can support a point with evidence from scriptures, then go for it. This thread is not to debate whether scriptures are right or wrong. What I want to learn is how the role of luck has been described in them. Any interesting anecdote of someone becoming rich without an effort can be put forward (though it can't be a proof)

Stephen Hawkings have claimed that philosophy is dead but, what does he know about philosophy? Does he know enough to understand how wrong his statement is? Or is he highly biased because he does not know much about philosophy? anyone knows?

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'. So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a…

Arthur Schopenhauer in his treatise The World as Will and Representation says that there exists something in humans apart from the appearances to observers which he calls it as the Will and says that humans are in a true sense free Will. See - On the Freedom of the Will. One wonders what is there in humans apart from the phenomenal appearances that humans see, what Schopenhauer is implying is that it is the observer itself which is the Will, which is the thing in itself of Kant. Daniel Dennet writes "That of which I am conscious is that to which I have access, or (to put the emphasis where it belongs), that to which I have access" (Dennet, 1978). Psychologists …

Excluding Hegel I have read all the important philosophers before Nietzsche. I don't like Heidegger's metaphysics or the point is that it does not interest me. So what should be the starting point in analytic philosophy. Thanks.

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one would help her make it. "This story shows us that when you work together, you can have fun, too. You also get to enjoy the rewards of your work." "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about honesty. The little boy dared to say the king had no clothes, when everyone was tricked into in believing only ignorant people couldn't see the king's be…

As moral and The Law are essential concepts, so is logos. Now I will really take issue with religion, because of how Christianity distorted our understanding of logos, with myth and superstition, and how this distortion then effects our understanding of democracy- rule by reason. This is from Wikipedia

Philosophy, for those who think it is crap, is the love of knowledge. Philosophy is the foundation of science. Philosophy is also the framework for moral thinking, and this discussion does not belong in the forum for religion, because it is about philosophy and an understanding of morals that makes democracy and liberty possible. The law, what is it? How do we know it? There is an organizing force to the universe, because obviously manifest reality is not disorganized chaos. We speak of this organizing force as the laws of physics and human nature and mathematics, etc.. I invite you to say what you know of the law and how you know it.

Was everything made by something else for its maker's purposes? Was everything not made by something else for its maker's purposes? I don't know if the former is true, but I do know the latter is false. I also know that everything either was or wasn't made by something else for its particular maker's purposes. Let me restate that more clearly. every (individual) thing either was or wasn't made by something else for its particular maker's purposes. A baby tiger was made by its mother for its mother's purpose. A hammer was made by a human for that human's purpose. Indeed, each of those things were made by something else for their particular makers' pur…

If some one were to write a Book, on philosophy and its most important , perplexing , intriguing, and mysterious questions, .....and this book consisted of 10 chapters, one on each greatly debated questions......what would be the names of each chapter? thanks for your replies,.....so i can get right to work on this book........jk

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?

There are those things, people and ideas we consider our own. There are those things, people and ideas we consider to be the pervue of others. Sometimes mutual ownership is reasonable. Sometimes it does not work. Sometimes you have to trade one thing in, or loose it, to acquire another. Sort of a simplistic starting point, but if you look at the stuff you defend, and the stuff you seek to eliminate, and the stuff you have no interest in, and multiply it by about 16 billion people doing that same thing over the history of humanity, it explains a lot. The agreements we have come to, the institutions that have been built, the wars that have been fought. …

The doomsayers are growing in number (seemingly) and spreading the doom to all who will listen. My question is; are they warning us or do they, secretly, welcome the devastating scenarios they describe?

I don't know. In a different science forum I have asked how we might come to moral decisions without religion, and that thread is not going so well. Actually the answers to such questions are frightening to me. It appears without at least some philosophy there are people interested in how things work who never question the morality of anything. Amoral science might not be a good thing, and it is what Zeus was afraid of.

Aphorisms, And Observations, By Ed Vaile “ You’re Only As Smart, As A Google Bar Away “ " Through Faith, One Gains Eternal Hope " " Never Under Estimate, The Power Of Conviction " " Hate, Spite, Envy, Greed, Sloth, And Deceit, Are The Foundation Of Misfortune " " The Key To Good Health, Is A Healthy Ration Of Hard Labor " " A Women’s Greatest Ally, Is Her Vanity " " That Which Is Easily Attainable, Often Bares Little Value " " If You Don't Make A Mess, You Don't Have To Clean It Up " " You Don't Know How Good You've Got It, Until You've Got It Worse" " Beware Of The Future, Nature Demands Justice Be Served " " No Amount Of…

I was looking through books online again. I saw some books on denial of scientific findings and an interesting book called Science and the Media: Delgado's Brave Bulls and the Ethics of Scientific Disclosure. That book is probably unnecessary for me as a freshman college student, and it's too much money, but I thought it sounded interesting. Do you want to cover some history for me, or recommend a source of information that provides broad coverage. The title of my thread summarize what I want to know about. "(pseudo)sciences" was a shortened version of "astronomy and astrology; astronomy and religion; climate change, environmentalism, and religion; eugenics, genetics…