Philosophy Thread

Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,556
Not all who wander are lost... @justforthelulz

(Then again, I would say that Diogenes and to lesser extent Socrates were both pretty much both wisemen and madmen.)
 
Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
17,888
@Tamerlane

in.jpg
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,053
Bill : [approaching Socrates] How's it going? I'm Bill, this is Ted. We're from the future.
Socrates : Socrates.
Ted : [whispering to Bill] Now what?
Bill : I dunno. Philosophize with him!
Ted : [clears his throat, to Socrates] "All we are is dust in the wind," dude.
[Socrates gives them a blank stare]
Bill : [scoops up a pile of dust from the basin before them and lets it run out of his hand] Dust.
[he blows the remainder away]
Bill : Wind.
Ted : [points at Socrates] Dude.
[Socrates gasps]

I got to watch that movie again.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,233
"you're never done killing, raping, or robing, and you always doing a good deeds. What if there's no God and Heaven? All you did was for nothing

"true, but what if there's a God and when you open your eyes, there's a Hell in front of you, and you are the ones who will lose

This is from a foreign language so apologize for my English.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,856
@merukit.

Yeah I admit in hindsight I made a rant about those who took the quote the wrong way and in doing so I miscommunicated the Nietzsche's actual idea. Which makes me as bad as the people I argue against.

@Tamerlane

Memes are ideas that communicated between people(?) So yes how to make a spear is a meme, The Abramramic God is a meme(that I believe in) and other gods (I don't believe) are also memes. French are military failures is also a meme. Memes can be offensive but stating that God is a meme is not actually offensive its just stating that you can form an idea regarding God and memes. That is a meme in itself.

Saying there is no God or gods is a just a religious statement also not offensive. "There are only memes" and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive statments. However I would argue that memes are not the only thing in the world. As there is an idea of making the spear and the physical process of executing you physically with said spear.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,556
That was more a reference to a popular reaction image than an actual statement @teddy
edb.jpg

Though if you want to talk god, I'm all down. For the record, I'm agnostic, but I do have Buddhist leanings. (at least in terms of philosophy and existentialism.) I was raised Catholic but now I'm not affiliated.

Really, in terms of Epistemology, I am a fan of Karl Popper so I believe that if something can not be tested and has the capability to be proven true or false, (falsifiability) it must be treated as if it were false both because of the burden of proof and because the only way to establish something as true is to apply tests that yield reliable results. God, at least the Abrahamic God, is so ethereal in my opinion that it cannot be tested and must assumed to be false
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,856
@Tamerlane
Within the scope Epistemology and progression of science it is necessary to be able to test everything to ensure that the theories behind them are correct and that humans are not lead into thinking eg. Bubbleguns can destroy buildings due to the pressure between the bubble and surrounding objects.

With this idea, it is definitely not able to prove the existence of God 100% and according to his scripture it is expected not to be able to.

However I believe rather than denying his existence due to burden of proof. I would say to keep it in mind as a possible cause to visible effects that can be seen around world. I.e. Billions of followers in Abrahamic religions (can't believe I spelt it wrong the first time). [Which ofcourse was due to a bloodthirsty history but has now become known to most of the world.] Complementary sources on the existance of the man Jesus, other prophets and the suicidical zealousness of their followers. Ofcourse it can all be due to halluciation and manlipulations but that cannot be proven true either. AS OF YET.

It is possible that further araechelogical research can prove or disprove the suggested causes of the founding of the early Israelites and spilt off of Christians too. Or simply the return of Christ as prophecised, if or when it occurs.

Tl;Dr Epistemology is a good way to ensure that theories match the practical effects. However theories can still be made as causes of visible effects before there are practical methods to measure them.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,556
Well, Popper actually first developed his theory as he used to be a Marxist and realized that their claims lacked merit, ultimately coming to a head when he was in college and he saw one of his friends getting shot, which dissuaded him from the group. So, as time went on and he saw the rise of socialism and fascism, he felt that he needed to create an empirical and methodical system to dispel claims. Fundamentally, he believed that the purpose of science, and to a greater extent knowledge, was not to find out what was "true" but what wasn't "true," and that finding out what definitely was not true would lead to getting to a point where you get ever closer and closer to the truth. There are limitations to this model, as it only applies to empirical observations (rationalist fields such as mathematics operate with internal logic and so can have proofs) and that it means that nothing can ever be proven or disproven, but the benefit is that it will always be able to adapt to new information and never be so rigid to be set in stone whilst still yielding reliable and accurate results should the burden of proof be overcome. Therefore, nothing can be ever known for complete certainty, but you can get to a point of verisimilitude where you get to a point so close to being true that you can reliably make educated predictions and representations of data until new information comes to contradict it, which will either lead to the theory being revised or the information being rejected as faulty depending on the circumstances.

I set this position up not only for context but to be clear why I am more against the Abrahamic religions than things like Buddhism or Daoism, as the core beliefs that unites all of Christainity, Islam, and Judaism is empirical claims. For Christainity, there is only one God and Jesus is his son who died for humanity's sins. For Islam, it's that Muhammad is the latest prophet of God. Eastern Religions, with the exception of Hinduism, are largely united in that they layout principles and philosophical ideas. For Buddhism, it's the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path that unites all the sects, irrelevant to the existence of God. Daoism is about following the path, going with the flow and accepting the world for how it is by actively resisting your urges and desires to go against or change the natural course of life. Therefore, empirical claims require empirical evidence, and the larger the claim, the more empirical evidence will need to go with it. Principles and philosophies can be debated on their own merits outside of this context, as they are not meant to be testable but more means and processes by which people understand themselves in a wider sense that's more interpretative.

As for your argument itself, it seems to be a bit fallacious to me. It's a bit of an appeal to popularity and an appeal to ignorance, though you do acknowledge the former as a limitation. Note that this isn't a slight against you personally or your beliefs, but is more against your argumentation. I should also point out that even if someone like the historical Jesus existed, that doesn't necessary validate the claims made about him or his own claims about being the son of god, which would be its own can of worms.

The TL;DR is that I'm massively pedantic nerd who tries to point towards tangible or empirical means of proving things, or tries to favor principles and ideas and engaging those on their own merits. @Teddy
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,856
@Tamerlane
Fair enough. And I see where you are coming from. I merely link within my own head that if there was the existence of the man Jesus. What did he do during hus life to get such a cult following with such fervor.

On another note im am not too knowledgable with the Buddist ideology and Daoism. If you have time please summarise further so I dont have to read through pages of wiki.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,556
Here's a summary of Buddhism, it's origins and philosophy. (Warning: it's long as fuck.) @Teddy
Buddhism's origins trace back to the 5th century (BC) in Northern India. He lived and died slightly before the Hellenistic Empires sprouted, which caused his ideas to travel back and potentially even influence Christianity to some extent as the Greeks saw a new level of interconnections with the world. However, because of the time period, most of the facts around the life of Gautama Siddhartha are a mixture of legend, myth and truth, though there is enough historical evidence to suggest he did exist and is not fabricated. Siddhartha's mother, Maya, is said to have died either from complications of childbirth or during the process, leaving him as the only heir. His father approached many Brahamin asking about the prophecy of the dynasty, and they said that Siddhartha would either become a great ruler or a great spiritual leader.

His father, wanting his bloodline to continue, kept him within the grand palace and would give him everything he wanted. Women, gold, food, etc. However, there were only two conditions: the prince may never leave the palace and he must never learn of the religious texts. This would not last, however, as the Prince grew older, he grew tired of the luxury and the temptation that surrounded him and slowly began to sneak out in his late 20s. (He was married with child at this point, it should be noted.) First, he saw a poor homeless man, and his charioteer told him that all men grew old. The second time he went out, he saw a sick man, and his charioteer told him all men must endure disease and pain. And on his final trip, he saw a dead man, and his charioteer told him that all men must die. As he returned, he saw an ascetic monk, mediating, which inspired him.

Disgusted by his father's sheltering, he returned home, as everything he ever knew had come spiraling down. That night, all the female servant are said to have all laid in his room, scattered like corpses, which caused him to finally leave the palace, looking at his wife and son and only vowing to return once he had reached enlightenment, and rode off into the night with his charioteer and favored horse until he reached a river, in which he cut off the hair knot which symbolized his royal blood and dawned the robes of a priest, sending the charioteer and horse back to inform his father and wife that he did not leave out of malice, or a lack of love, but that he wanted to end the cycle of death and rebirth, and that the house life was impure and narrow- the samana life was free and open air.

Accounts very after this point. Some say he went from brahamin to brahamin looking for answers but never being satisfied, others say he was a beggar who would regularly starve himself and fast to reach a state of understanding of mortality. It's said that it was only after he was mediating so hard that he fell into the river and was rescued by a peasant girl who feed him rice pudding to break his fast that it's said he realized the middle path-or the road between self indulgence and self mortification in which it was most healthy to live within, holding nothing to excess and holding nothing to self-repulsion. It is then he is said to have reached enlightenment mediating under the Bodhi tree in which he discovered the Four Nobles Truths.

It should be noted that the Four Noble Truths are structured like a doctor's diagnosis of the time, as the now Enlightened "Buddha" was essentially prescribing an end to perpetual existance, or as it was understood in Hinduism at the time.

They go as follows:
1) Life/Existence is Dukha (Suffering/Pain/Unpleasantness/Etc)
2) All Dukha stems from Desire/Wanting/Attachments
3) There is a way to end Desire/Wanting/Attachments
4) It is through the Eightfold Path

The Eightfold Path:
1) Right View- All actions have consequences, intended or not. Death is not the end. Our actions and beliefs will outlive us in their effects
2) Right Resolve-The attempt at giving up of desire to follow the path to enlightenment, not reach a state where earthly possessions, needs, and attachments no longer way upon us. The ideas typically coupled with this are the principles of "impermanence" or the idea that nothing lasts forever and that everything is temporary, "Suffering" or the idea that Dukha is inherent to existence, and Non-self, or the idea that one has moved beyond any concepts of identity and that they have accepted who they are for who they are and what they are beyond any extrinsic notions like race, politics, gender, or sexual orientation
3) Right Speech- No slander, lying, or misconduct with the attempt to harm or to cause ill-will.
4) Right Conduct- Refrain from killing, stealing, or sexual misconduct unless absolutely necessary or as an option of last resort. (Excluding Sexual Misconduct for the last clause)
5) Right Livelihood- Gaining one's livelihood by benefiting others and not selling tools of destruction such as weapons, poisons, or drugs with the knowledge or intent to cause harm
6) Right Effort-Preventing Unwholesome or unhealthy states of mind and promoting the Seven Virtues and healthy states of mind and being
7) Right Mindfulness- Retention, be mindful of not only the dhammas (teachings) but of others and of their intentions. Do not be absent minded, and be aware of the effects of your actions
8)Right Concentration- Meditation, understanding of oneself and others, and practice of mindfulness/and putting your principles into practice

They are intentionally meant to be broad and more setup as guidelines due to the complexity of life and circumstances. There are many different arguments and schools of thought for each branch or interpretation of the path. They're like the 10 commandments on a superficial level, but Buddha doesn't make moral judgement, but rather states that these are the means to minimize suffering, and understands that situations will arise in life that may make one stray temporarily. The attempt is not for some sense of purity or favor, but to follow as general principles and guidelines.

The ultimate goal in which is Nirvana. (Literally "snuffed-out," "explosion," etc.) It is a state of non-existence in which there is no longer suffering or pain, no sense of self or punishment. There is no "you" to perceive anything. Unlike Hinduism, which believes that once a person has ascended to through the castes and becomes one with the universal energy in Moshaka, Buddhism believes that Nirvana can be achieved in one life time, regardless of sex, gender, ideology, class, race, or even religion. It's about following the path, and once you have reached a sufficient state, you will be liberated from attachments and pain, and reach a state of contentment with your place in the world and how infinitely small you are in the grand scheme of things.

I'm personally a Secular Buddhist so I don't believe in reincarnation, but it should be noted that Buddha envisioned life as a never ending wheel in which you would fall into the same patterns and cycle of life, death, rebirth, and you would trap yourself in the same pitfalls, habits, and relapses unless you were able to overcome them and work past them. I argue with that to some extent, minus the spiritual aspects, but I there are limits to how closely I align with Buddhism. I tend to respect it from a more secular point of view and follow the principles and ideas more than a strict moral code.

I'll do Taoism later, because this alone is long as fuck. (Plus I just read most of the Tao Te Ching, and so I'll want to finish it first.)
 
Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
346
@tamerlane
You're wrong tho. Buddhism predates the 5th century AD according to history. The maurya empire was built around 300bc. That empire was predicted on Buddhism, the existence of Buddha and his teachings. If you meant bc then it would be potentially feasible.

Also memes gay.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,556
Fuck, meant BC. (though to be fair, I did immediately bring up how it could have influenced Christianity, so it could be inferred) Hence why I reference the Hellenstic Empires. (The Gupta and Maurya were considered parts of those, technically. And the Asokha was in the Mauryan Empire, and he was the one who sent out the most missionaries to spread Buddhism if I recall correctly) @dabson

Also, you've just got Bean'd good sir.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,856
@Tamerlane.
His father is literally making the mistake of self fulfilling the prophecy.

Im not too sure about 3-7 of the 8 noble paths. If the point is to reduce attachments. Then should you not care about the effects of your actions? Understand that your actions do cause effects but then both good and bad actions should cause effects that may cause attachments. Best would be to isolate as a monk.

Reducing urges make sense to reduce attachments but I don't understand why Altruism would be beneficial to Buddhists.

By the same coin would not purposedly multiating ones self so that they have no senses not motor skills be the fastest way to enlightment and do you have to die enlightened to be enlightened or can you be enlightened whilst alive and have a moment of epiphany and transcend according to buddahism?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top