• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My Philosophy

kmortis said:
Does the river flow around the rock?

(and yes, I'll keep this up until someone gets the reference)
Click to expand...

Not neccesarily, that depends on where the rock is. It could flow over the rock, or beside it. :p

And no, I don't get the reference....
 
direlect said:
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
Click to expand...
Well, this much I understand, but you are kind of preaching to the choir here. Most people here believe that nothing can be shown to be true with 100% certainty, including things like gravity. All we can do is talk about patterns and probablities. But some patterns are very well established and some probabilities are close to 100%. So for all practical purposes you can speak of "going over the same river twice" even full knowing that the molecules of water are different, the stream path is different, the temperature is different, etc. Without some generalizations it would be impossible to communicate.

So if you reread this message tomorrow, it will be, for all useful defintions, the same message, even though your computer will be emitting different photons!
 
direlect said:
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
Click to expand...

I thought the river was an analogy. A good or a bad analogy doesn't really affect the truth of something. Either you come up with a better one that works, or you explain the philosophy some other way.

How does your philosophy function? Is change a constant? Does change affect the nature of things?
 
LostAngeles said:
Oops, I combined words into a Voltron of wordiness. But thank you.

NOT A SENSICAL PHRASE.
Click to expand...

Pardon my earlier one-liner, here's something more apt:

"It is illogical to have linear logic. However it may have truth in it, you will never find the complete answer.

With Circular logic, you have your back up, and as long as that back up is uninteruptabed, it is perfected 100 with truth, making it wise, which makes it truth."
Click to expand...

From fstdt.com, naturally. ;)
 
Tricky said:
So if you reread this message tomorrow, it will be, for all useful defintions, the same message, even though your computer will be emitting different photons!
Click to expand...
Yes, but the same person won't be looking at it.
 
direlect said:
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
Click to expand...
The television screen exists, and so does the television program, although more in the ethereal sense.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but the same person won't be looking at it.
Click to expand...
No it won't be. There will be a few new cells. A few new encoded memories. It's even possible they will have had a major catharsis since the previous reading and vowed to be "a different person". But the person will be so similar that we can call them the same person without risk of anybody misunderstanding what we mean.
 
Tricky said:
No it won't be. There will be a few new cells. A few new encoded memories. It's even possible they will have had a major catharsis since the previous reading and vowed to be "a different person". But the person will be so similar that we can call them the same person without risk of anybody misunderstanding what we mean.
Click to expand...
What about when we dream? Do we always experience ourselves as the same person in our dreams? I sure don't.
 
Iacchus said:
What about when we dream? Do we always experience ourselves as the same person in our dreams? I sure don't.
Click to expand...
No you don't. You don't even experience yourself the same way when you are awake. Sometimes you feel bad about yourself, sometimes good, the whole panopoly of self-visualization. But this does not change the fact that you are, to a large degree, the same person. That same brain is the source of your self-regard.

It is true that certain mental disease, like schizophrenia, may cause your self-visualization to swing so widely that you can have what appear to be multiple personalities. But they are still all just aspects of you, depending on how "you" is defined.

Of course, there are exception where your "self" changes quite drastically, like if you get amnesia or go into a coma or get stinking drunk. You might correctly say that in such instances, the person inhabiting the same body is 'not you' because the mental patterns have changed so drastically that no one would recognize you by your personality. But in general, most people tend to show a great deal consistancy in their behavior. Some are boringly consistant.
 
direlect said:
Please elaborate!
Click to expand...

Quality of being logical relating to a circle.

Quality of being logical shaped like or nearly like a circle; round.

Quality of being logical moving in or forming a circle.

Roundabout quality of being logical.

Using a premise to prove a conclusion that in turn is used to prove the premise quality of being logical.

Defining one word in terms of another that is itself defined in terms of the first word quality of being logical

Quality of being logical addressed or distributed to a large number of persons.

You can make a circular argument, you can display circular logic, but I'm afraid "circular logicalness" is nonsense. Maybe you should finish English 101 and Philosophy 102 and come back and try again.
 
Tricky said:
No you don't. You don't even experience yourself the same way when you are awake. Sometimes you feel bad about yourself, sometimes good, the whole panopoly of self-visualization.
Click to expand...
Yes, and with this, the meaning (per your message above) is apt to change. This is all I meant to say.

But this does not change the fact that you are, to a large degree, the same person. That same brain is the source of your self-regard.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that most of the information regarding our experience, as widely as it can and does vary, is retrievable ... and can therefore be attached to the same "entity."

It is true that certain mental disease, like schizophrenia, may cause your self-visualization to swing so widely that you can have what appear to be multiple personalities. But they are still all just aspects of you, depending on how "you" is defined.
Click to expand...
All just aspects of the "you" which is filtered through the same brain.

Of course, there are exception where your "self" changes quite drastically, like if you get amnesia or go into a coma or get stinking drunk. You might correctly say that in such instances, the person inhabiting the same body is 'not you' because the mental patterns have changed so drastically that no one would recognize you by your personality.
Click to expand...
At least not the you which is cognizant and "awake."

But in general, most people tend to show a great deal consistancy in their behavior. Some are boringly consistant.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of this has to do with how much structure a person has in one's life and, how much they're willing to be told what to do.
 
direlect said:
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
Click to expand...

See sig line below.....
 
Ryokan said:
Not neccesarily, that depends on where the rock is. It could flow over the rock, or beside it. :p

And no, I don't get the reference....
Click to expand...
That Tricky didn't get it is a crying shame.

tick_ninjas.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom