User Controls
What does most of philosphy come back to?
-
2017-05-30 at 2:18 AM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 2:25 AM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ How many brilliant people have you talked to?
I didn't mean simply people I've spoken to IRL, that would be an absolutely retarded metric to use. I meant based on what they've written, which contains far more information, of a higher quality, than you'd be likely to gain even if you knew someone and spoke to them regularly for years, a decade. That and whether or not they had children, ever espoused anti-natalist views. -
2017-05-30 at 3:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice I didn't mean simply people I've spoken to IRL, that would be an absolutely retarded metric to use. I meant based on what they've written, which contains far more information, of a higher quality, than you'd be likely to gain even if you knew someone and spoke to them regularly for years, a decade. That and whether or not they had children, ever espoused anti-natalist views.
I have to agree with this statement. I feel like I can put my thoughts down more exact and precise when typing them out versus just talking to someone IRL plus I have a po dunk town hick accent so that takes away from my statements to some extent as well. -
2017-05-30 at 10:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by RestStop I have to agree with this statement. I feel like I can put my thoughts down more exact and precise when typing them out versus just talking to someone IRL plus I have a po dunk town hick accent so that takes away from my statements to some extent as well.
I am the opposite. I wax elegant IRL, but whenever I am online I can only think it is pointless to throw pearls to retarded swine.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-30 at 11:06 AM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 4 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 5:14 PM UTCIt's like calling a sandwich a peanut, just because it's got peanut butter in it. Colors are the result of light, not the other way around. So, as long as there it light, there will be colors. And light is made up of particles. Real particles. They are called photons. So, yes, a rainbow is real, colors are real, but only because they are created from light. The rainbow and the colors are properties of the photons, the results depending on what viewpoint you assume. And light, photons, are really waves. Waves of particles radiating out in all directions. Same with reality as we know it. Reality as we know it is simply a wave of particles, radiating out in all directions. What we physically see, touch and feel is all comprised of particles, particles so small that we have not even discovered them yet. And those as-yet undetected particles come in a wave stream. Even light itself, those photons, are comprised of smaller particles we have not yet discovered, and those particles which create the photons come in a wave. All of reality as we know it, including space, and the planets, and the Universe, and beyond, are part of one massive emanating wave of particles.
-
2017-05-30 at 5:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL It's like calling a sandwich a peanut, just because it's got peanut butter in it. Colors are the result of light, not the other way around. So, as long as there it light, there will be colors. And light is made up of particles. Real particles. They are called photons. So, yes, a rainbow is real, colors are real, but only because they are created from light. The rainbow and the colors are properties of the photons, the results depending on what viewpoint you assume. And light, photons, are really waves. Waves of particles radiating out in all directions. Same with reality as we know it. Reality as we know it is simply a wave of particles, radiating out in all directions. What we physically see, touch and feel is all comprised of particles, particles so small that we have not even discovered them yet. And those as-yet undetected particles come in a wave stream. Even light itself, those photons, are comprised of smaller particles we have not yet discovered, and those particles which create the photons come in a wave. All of reality as we know it, including space, and the planets, and the Universe, and beyond, are part of one massive emanating wave of particles.
Yeah, but dude! What if my blue is like your green? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?? -
2017-05-30 at 6:35 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 6:37 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 6:40 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 6:52 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-30 at 8:21 PM UTCThe fact that one can see it, and one cannot, does not change the situation. The particles are still there, no matter how one perceives them, or doesn't perceive them.
-
2017-05-30 at 9:16 PM UTCThey would have no way of knowing if they each intrpretd the color differently, only could both agree on it being "green".
-
2017-05-30 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Shitfucker They would have no way of knowing if they each intrpretd the color differently, only could both agree on it being "green".
One could see it as one thing, and the other see it different, and the other not see it all. That doesn't change the fact that the particles which make the perception possible are really there. -
2017-05-31 at 12:51 AM UTClol, SpectraL, you're comically naive. Incomparability of qualia is occurs to literal children, but apparently not you.
Originally posted by Malice Honestly, if you don't take Nietzsche seriously he was pretty fucking funny as a philosopher, in a way. You could see him as a professional roaster or critic that just gets hilariously pissed off at some of the finest figures in philosophy and concepts within the subject and goes on these absurd polemical diatribes. His own personal ideology and personality go very well with it.
I thought about this a bit more and I like it. Nietzsche is great at tearing things down. As a diagnostician of the ailments of an industrializing society there's hardly a thing I take issue with. It's when he starts trying to fix things, system build, that the cringe sets in. If he literally just wrote like half of each of his books they'd be immensely betterThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-31 at 1:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I thought about this a bit more and I like it. Nietzsche is great at tearing things down. As a diagnostician of the ailments of an industrializing society there's hardly a thing I take issue with. It's when he starts trying to fix things, system build, that the cringe sets in. If he literally just wrote like half of each of his books they'd be immensely better
Building is excruciatingly difficult. You're intelligent enough to have realized the profound asymmetry at this point, the countless problems you run into when attempting to build a system and defend it, maintain coherence. The complexity is just overwhelming.
You know, shoulders of giants and hindsight bias, all of those related issues. If we had gone back in time to their era, with their limited knowledge, technological limitations, to put it crudely, even as strong rationalists, it would have been hard as fuck to figure out the world and not go astray.
Even Kant wrote some fucking batshit things before properly developing his ideology. You can find tons of early work by various philosophers that would be an absolute embarrassment in their later years.
Specifically relating to Nietzsche, the reason I bring this up is because you have to keep in mind that despite how relatively incredibly accomplished he was early in his life he literally began descending into madness and was completely disabled at a time when, with increasing age, the worldview of philosophers normally tends to become increasingly coherent. Instead he went in the opposite direction. I'm just saying that you have to give him some lenience and understanding, who knows what he could have accomplished if his life hadn't taken a tragic turn. Of course you can't assume anything, but it most likely would have occurred, unless he ended up being completely unable to cope with reality due to various psychological factors or burned out hard. -
2017-05-31 at 4:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Specifically relating to Nietzsche, the reason I bring this up is because you have to keep in mind that despite how relatively incredibly accomplished he was early in his life he literally began descending into madness and was completely disabled at a time when, with increasing age, the worldview of philosophers normally tends to become increasingly coherent. Instead he went in the opposite direction. I'm just saying that you have to give him some lenience and understanding, who knows what he could have accomplished if his life hadn't taken a tragic turn. Of course you can't assume anything, but it most likely would have occurred, unless he ended up being completely unable to cope with reality due to various psychological factors or burned out hard.
Nietzsche achieved his potential I think. 5 books in 1 year! Each one a masterpiece! Uber-fucking-menchen! I personally find them perfectly coherent. Nietzsche just had the bad luck not to be born in an age where he could have become a rockstar instead of a syphilitic recluse 80 years ahead of his time.
Edit: Or a comedian. Its a pity I can't read him in German. Even translated he is hilarious like you said; he must be Lenny fucking Bruce in his native tongue.
Post last edited by Dionysus at 2017-05-31T04:29:14.006994+00:00
Post last edited by Dionysus at 2017-05-31T04:29:32.622129+00:00
